15.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/1

1.

The Community Fisheries Control Agency (hereinafter ‘the Agency’), which is located in Vigo, was created by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005 (1). The Agency's main task is to organise the operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States in order to ensure effective and uniform application of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (2).

2.

The Agency's 2010 budget amounted to 11 million euro, compared with 10,1 million euro the previous year. The number of staff employed by the Agency at the end of the year was 54 as compared with 49 the previous year.

3.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287(1), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court has audited the annual accounts (3) of the Agency, which comprise the ‘financial statements’ (4) and the ‘reports on the implementation of the budget’ (5) for the financial year ended 31 December 2010, and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying those accounts.

4.

This Statement of Assurance is addressed to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 185(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (6).

5.

As authorising officer, the Director implements the revenue and expenditure of the budget in accordance with the financial rules of the Agency, under his own responsibility and within the limits of the authorised appropriations (7). The Director is responsible for putting in place (8) the organisational structure and the internal management and control systems and procedures relevant for drawing up final accounts (9) that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and for ensuring that the transactions underlying those accounts are legal and regular.

6.

The Court's responsibility is to provide, on the basis of its audit, a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts of the Agency and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them.

7.

The Court conducted its audit in accordance with the IFAC and ISSAI (10) International Auditing Standards and Codes of Ethics. Those standards require the Court to comply with ethical requirements and to plan and perform the audit so as to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the accounts are free of material misstatement and whether the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

8.

The Court's audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence of the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and of the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them. The procedures selected, including its assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts or of illegal or irregular transactions, whether due to fraud or error, depend on its audit judgement. In making those risk assessments, internal controls relevant to the entity's preparation and presentation of accounts are considered in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The Court's audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of the accounting policies used and the reasonableness of the accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the accounts.

9.

The Court believes that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the opinions set out below.

10.

In the Court's opinion, the Agency's Annual Accounts (11) fairly present, in all material respects, its financial position as of 31 December 2010 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Regulation.

11.

In the Court's opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year ended 31 December 2010 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

12.

The comments which follow do not call the Court's opinions into question.

13.

Some of the Agency's 2010 budget commitments related to expenditure for 2011 projects, contrary to the budgetary principle of annuality.

14.

Weaknesses were noted in the Agency's procedures for ensuring that procurement documents are duly signed and dated.

15.

With regard to staff selection procedures, neither the thresholds that candidates had to meet in order to be invited to the interview nor those necessary to be put on the reserve list were fixed in advance. These practices put at risk the transparency of the recruitment procedures.