Examples of using Audit coverage in English and their translations into Slovak
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
-
Programming
The measures will lead to an increased level of audit coverage.
Although audit coverage has varied, a number of common findings can be identified.
In such cases,the Commission also takes into account the characteristics of the population and the audit coverage.
This limited audit coverage reduces the reliability of the eligible expenditure declared to the Commission.
The Commission notes that the change of methodology increased the audit coverage from 5% to 20% compared to previous years.
Any increase in audit coverage above the current optimum would give rise to increased costs to the detriment of policy implementation.
A significant improvement for 2010 was the introduction of acommon benchmark providing for a 5% annual audit coverage.
The Commission considers this audit coverage comprehensive and sufficient as regards the financial risk concerned.
The first stratum included high risk areas(notably FP7 and H2020)with an intensified audit coverage, and other high risk areas(such as CEF).
In particular the magnitude of controls(audit coverage and subsequent adjustments) could be addressed with a view to lower the control burden.
This leads to a complex and fragmented policy delivery structure with numerous systems andlimits the Commission's conformity audit coverage for EAFRD expenditure.
Recent missions enable audit coverage of the years and Member States considered by the Court as most at risk from the shortcomings highlighted by it.
As regards the coverage of contracted audits the Commission considers that the audit coverage in relation to grants is substantial and sufficient.
It is emphasised that the audit coverage in the 2013 audit planning is indicative and it cannot be compared to the actual coverage in the previous years.
Management representations are there to close the gap on non-audited operations becauseit is simply not possible to have 100% audit coverage every year.
Information on the audit coverage, including all underlying detailed information related with the points raised by ECA was communicated to ECA in the first week of June 2014.
For the 2007-2013 programming period,national audit authorities have been set up to ensure the audit coverage of all programmes, according to an audit strategy agreed with the Commission.
An increase of the audit coverage as targeted by the audit strategy requires the implementation of the audit results on systemic errors to non-audited projects across DGs.
This audit strategy continues to be risk- based;in order to achieve optimal audit coverage, it now features a rolling 3- year audit programme applicable as from July 2014.
Observations 32 The Commission's audit coverage did not provide sufficient information on the weaknesses found by the Court 56 The Commission, through its audits, must monitor the management and control systems established in the Member States26.
On-the-spot audit enquiries undertaken in 2007 and early 2008 by the Commission have already targeted those same three Member States mentioned by the Court,thereby providing audit coverage for the earlier and current years in question.
Certain refinements stillneed to be made to allow for the assessment of the audit coverage and the use of this system in collating, analysing and acting upon audit findings and recommendations.
However the Commission's audit coverage to monitor the management of these measures did not provide sufficient relevant information on the Member State implementation and control procedures and did not detect or remedy any of the weaknesses highlighted above.
As a result of the substantial amount of audit work carried out by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy,good audit coverage has been attained for most of the 2004 enlargement Member States(between 5% and 41% of projects).
DG Regional and Urban Policy also decided to increase its audit coverage of data on withdrawals and recoveries reported by Member States, and to use all available audit results from audit authorities, in order to increase its assurance on reported data used for the calculation of the cumulative residual risk.
Examples of unspecific reform expectations ο Extra-budgetary expenses to be substantially reduced, but no indication when or by how much. ο The introduction of an accrual accounting system without specifying a deadline. ο The use of a TreasurySingle Account without specifying a deadline. ο Audit coverage to be increased, but no targets specified. Box 4.
In EuropeAid's system, assurance is not gathered by ensuring a certain pre-determined audit coverage ratio but, simply,by ensuring that the audit coverage encompasses all relevant‘audit subject', identified in relation to the risks perceived.
This results in an inconsistent application of this concept by the Direc torates-General concerned(e.g. anticipation of expected recoveries without a link to actual amounts, for certain programmes non-quantification of risks of error of up to 5% taking into account the retention rate provided for in the regulation(16), exclusion of negative audit results fornewly started audit programmes with limited audit coverage).
Whilst legal certainty is a legitimate objective, and while complete audit coverage within a given period is not feasible,the combined effect of the commission's current audit coverage and the 24 month rule result in a situation where for some expenditure areas, if ultimately audited, there is no possibility to impose corrections. this can be best illustrated by the example in Box 3.
Without questioning the Court's statements, FCH JU notes that considering the effectiveness of the JU's internal controls to detect errors,the high ex-post audit coverage, the corrections implemented by the JU on 98% of the errors detected and the low weight of interim payments in respect of total payments, the amount at risk(i.e. potential error undetected in the validated cost claims) is relatively limited in respect of total payments made and total operational expenditure incurred in 2011.