15.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/106

1.

The European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’), which is located in Parma, was established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (1). Its main tasks are to supply the scientific information needed for Union legislation to be drawn up, to collect and analyse data that allow risks to be identified and monitored and to provide independent information on these risks (2).

2.

The Authority's 2010 budget amounted to 74,7 million euro, compared with 71,4 million euro the previous year. The number of staff employed by the Authority at the end of the year was 433 as compared with 407 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 Authority, 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 Authority, 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 Authority 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 Authority'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 Authority 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.

A review of the Declarations of Interest of the Members of the Management Board is carried out by the Chairperson with the assistance of Vice Chairpersons. This review process is insufficiently rigorous and insufficiently detailed. Different approaches to the management of conflict of interest issues are adopted for similar situations. There is scope to improve the completeness and transparency of this procedure.

14.

Weaknesses were noted in some recruitment procedures: the anonymity of the written tests was not respected, scores for passing to the various stages of the selection process were decided upon after the evaluation process had started and vague criteria were used. These matters put at risk the transparency of the recruitment process.