13.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 365/142

1.

The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (hereinafter ‘the Institute’, aka ‘EIT’), which is located in Budapest, was created by Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The Institute’s objective is to contribute to sustainable European economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing the innovation capacity of the Member States and the European Union. The Institute awards grants to three ‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’ (KICs), linking the higher education, research and business sectors with one another and thereby boosting innovation and entrepreneurship (2). KICs coordinate the activities of hundreds of partners. The grants provided by EIT reimburse partners’ costs and costs stemming from the KICs’ coordination activities.

2.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, direct testing of transactions and an assessment of key controls of the Institute’s supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

3.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

4.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (5), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Institute and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions:

5.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (7) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Institute are free from material misstatement and the transactions underlying them are legal and regular.

6.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

7.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

8.

In the Court’s opinion, the Institute’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

9.

In 2012, the Institute made final payments and clearings of pre-financings (transactions) for grants amounting to 11,3 million euro (2010 activities) and 48,6 million euro (2011 activities).

10.

All grant transactions are subject to review by the Commission before authorisation by EIT. The Institute itself made considerable efforts to implement effective ex ante verifications with the aim of providing reasonable assurance on the legality and regularity of grant transactions. About 80 % of grant expenditure claimed by KIC’s is covered by certificates issued by independent audit firms contracted by the KICs and their partners. EIT itself carried out ex ante verifications consisting of comprehensive desk checks. Supporting documents obtained from the KICs and their partners were reviewed by EIT initially only in the case of particular risks identified.

11.

The Court found however that the quality of the audit certificates is inadequate in many instances (8). In order to have a second layer of assurance on the legality and regularity of grant transactions, at the end of 2012 the Institute introduced complementary ex post verifications for grants related to 2011 activities. They were carried out by independent audit firms contracted by EIT and are assessed as reliable. Ex post verification results confirmed that ex ante verifications are not fully effective. The Institute has however recovered the irregular payments found and the residual error rate for 2011 grant transactions is not material.

12.

No ex post verifications have been carried out yet for the transactions related to grants for 2010 activities (11,3 million euro). In addition, given the limited assurance that can be drawn from ex ante verifications, there is no reasonable assurance as to the legality and regularity of these transactions. The Court could not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on the legality and regularity of the audited grant transactions related to 2010 activities.

13.

In the Court’s opinion, except for the possible effects of the matters described in the basis for a qualified opinion paragraphs 9 to 12, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are legal and regular in all material respects.

14.

The comments which follow do not call into question the Court’s opinion on the reliability of the accounts or its qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

15.

In addition to the matter described in paragraphs 9 to 13, budgets for grant agreements signed in 2010 and 2011, which resulted in payments in 2012, were not sufficiently specific. There was no link between the approved funds and the activities to be implemented. Grant agreements did not set individual thresholds for specific cost categories (i.e. staff costs, sub-contracting, legal services, etc.) and did not include rules for the procurement of goods and services by the KICs and their partners.

16.

EIT also carried out technical verifications for all funded projects as part of its ex ante verifications. However, there was a lack of quantifiable targets that hampered an effective assessment of project activities and results. Business plans did not define in detail the activities to be implemented; nor did they set clear milestones, deliverables per activity or quality criteria.

17.

Out of the committed appropriations carried over from 2011 amounting to some 22 million euro, some 10 million euro (45 %) were cancelled in 2012. The high level of cancellations is mainly due to lower than estimated costs claimed by beneficiaries under 2011 grant agreements (9,2 million euro or 92 % of cancelled carry-overs).

18.

An overview of the corrective actions taken in response to the Court's previous year's comments is provided in Annex I.