EC report lacks information required to substantiate anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy
10 Apr 2014 10:35 AM
A letter from the European Court of Auditors
(ECA) to the leaders of the EU, published this week, criticises the EU
Commission’s Anti-Corruption report as overly descriptive, offering
little analysis and no substantive findings, relying instead on the results of
corruption perception polls, whose usefulness is
limited.
“At first glance, the outcome of the
Commission’s report seems alarming. But the findings of the report are
primarily based on the perceptions of citizens and
companies,” stated Mr Alex Brenninkmeijer, the ECA Member
responsible for the analysis, “Reality may well be
different. And it is unfortunate that the Commission excluded EU institutions
and bodies from its analysis.”
The
EU auditors said that corruption and fraud erode trust in public institutions
and democracy, and that they also undermine the functioning of EU’s
internal market. The ECA welcomes the Commission’s anti-corruption report
as a promising start to a useful discussion. The independent audit institution
encourages such a discussion, because it is an important contribution to
accountability of public institutions, both national and EU level, towards EU
citizens. Enhancing good governance by improving transparency and
accountability – in particular in the field of anti-corruption measures
– is essential for gaining public trust in public institutions. A
policy of transparency and accountability is fundamentally necessary for these
institutions to carry out their duties properly, and ensure the integrity of
their staff. Transparency and integrity are key conditions for fighting fraud
and corruption.
The
ECA considers that thorough timely and accurate data and independent
evaluations, at EU and Member State level, needs to be further developed in
order to identify: (1) the actual risk areas; (2) reasons why corruption occurs
and; (3) which measures need to be taken, and which have proved to be
effective. Basing anti-corruption measures on perceptions instead of the actual
occurrence of corruption brings with it the risk that these measures might be
unnecessarily burdensome and fail to address the real causes for
corruption.
The
full text of the letter can be found on http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=4775
Notes to the editors:
The
EU anti-corruption mechanism of 2011, which is based upon Article 83 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, obliges the EU Commission to
produce a report on combating corruption every second year, starting in
2013.
The
Commission’s report describes trends and developments in corruption, and
identifies a number of successful anti-corruption measures which are being used
in Member States. In doing so, the report covers a wide range of issues and
specific areas where corruption is a particular risk. However, the report is
mainly of a descriptive nature. It is based on the outcomes of round tables,
Euro barometer information and a review of anti-corruption measures. It lacks
information on concrete findings.
In
this, its first anti-corruption report, the Commission does not provide a link
to the overall issue of fraud and corruption in the EU and its Member States.
The Commission does, however, provide arguments for its thematic focus on
public procurement. Public procurement is an area with a high impact on the
error rate estimated by the ECA and therefore considered as a high risk area.
The Court’s estimate of the error rate is not a measure of fraud or
corruption. Public procurement errors can mean that the objectives of public
procurement rules – promoting fair competition and ensuring that
contracts are awarded to the best qualified bidder – have not always been
achieved. The ECA reports any suspected cases of fraud and corruption among
these failures to OLAF which has investigative powers.
The
anti-corruption report presented by the Commission evaluates the achievements
of national initiatives. No convincing explanation is provided for why the EU
institutions and bodies are excluded from the analysis. However, it is apparent
from the report itself and from the feedback it received from inter alia the
European Ombudsman and debate in the European Parliament that the omission of
EU institutions and bodies from the Report was unfortunate.
The
EU Commission’s anti-corruption report can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-
and-human-trafficking/corruption/anti-corruption-report/index_en.htm<
/span>