13.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 365/9

1.

The Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, hereinafter ‘the Office’, which is located in Riga, was established by Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The Office’s main task is to provide professional and administrative support services to the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and, under the guidance of the Board of Regulators, to collect and analyse information on electronic communications and to disseminate among National Regulatory Authorities regulatory best practices such as common approaches, methodologies or guidelines on the implementation of the EU regulatory framework (2).

2.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, direct testing of transactions and an assessment of key controls of the Office’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 Office 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 Office 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 Office’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 the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are legal and regular in all material respects.

10.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinions into question and should be considered in the light of the fact that 2012 was the Office’s first year of operations and that the establishing of all its procedures is still ongoing.

11.

The Office’s accounting system was still not validated by the Accounting Officer.

12.

Committed appropriations carried over amounting to 61 500 euro (10 % of the total committed appropriations carried over) did not correspond to legal commitments and were thus irregular.

13.

The Office had not yet implemented the Internal Control Standards on ‘Objectives and performance indicators’ (ICS 5), ‘Process and procedures’ (ICS 8), ‘Document management’ (ICS 11) and ‘Information and Communication’ (ICS 12).

14.

There is no procedure related to the registration and disposal of fixed assets and no physical inventory has been performed.

15.

Procedures concerning the establishment, approval and recording of exceptions and deviations from policies and procedures have not been implemented.

16.

Some 101 000 euro, 45 % of the committed appropriations carried over from 2011, were cancelled. Appropriations for 2012 of 545 000 euro, 17 % of total 2012 appropriations, were not used and also had to be cancelled. The level of carryovers of committed appropriations to 2013 was high at 611 000 euro or 19 % of the total. This indicates difficulties in the planning and/or implementation of the Office’s activities. The carry-overs for 2012 were mostly related to delayed recruitments and the absence of an effective policy to ensure the timely presentation and reimbursement of mission costs claimed by experts.

17.

There is considerable room for improving the preparation, execution and documentation of procurement procedures. As an example, award procedures did not give sufficient attention to the price quality ratio and general award criteria had not been further broken down into sub criteria to allow a clear and comparable evaluation of the offers.

18.

The recruitment procedures examined showed significant shortcomings affecting transparency: questions for written tests and interviews were set after the applications had been examined by the selection board; no threshold scores were set for admission to written tests and interviews and for being included in the list of suitable candidates; nomination and changes in the composition of the selection board were not approved by the Appointing Authority.

19.

Most of the Office’s staff have an administrative or support function and do not travel, but all have been provided with a mobile phone with a monthly limit up to approximately 50 euro. There are no controls to monitor private use.

20.

The Office does not have a treasury policy. At the end of 2012, all cash (1,6 million euro) was held in one bank (BBB rating (8)).

21.

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