ZMLUVA
ZMLUVA
o audite
uzavretá podľa § 23 ods. 7 zákona 423/20015 Z. z. o štatutárnom audite a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 431/2002
Z. z. o účtovníctve v znení neskorších predpisov (ďalej len „zákon o štatutárnom audite“) a podľa § 269 ods. 2 zákona č. 513/1991 Zb. Obchodný zákonník v znení neskorších predpisov (ďalej len „Obchodný zákonník“)
(ďalej len „zmluva“)
medzi
1. Vykonávateľ auditu:
Grant Thornton Audit, s.r.o.
Číslo audítorskej licencie: č. 28
Zapísaný/-á v Obchodnom registri: Okresného súdu Bratislava I., Vložka číslo: 5861/B, Oddiel: Sro
Zastúpený/-á: Xxx. Xxxxx Xxxxx, MSc Xxxxxxxxxx audítor: Xxx. Xxxxx Xxxxx, MSc
Sídlo: Hodžovo námestie 1/A, Bratislava – mestská časť Staré Mesto, 811 06 Bratislava
IČO: 31 359 523
DIČ: 2020301679
IČ DPH: SK2020301679
Bankové spojenie: Tatra Banka, a.s.
IBAN: XX00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
(ďalej len „vykonávateľ auditu“)
2. Objednávateľ auditu:
Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republiky
v zastúpení: Mgr. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, minister školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republiky
so sídlom: Stromová 1, 813 30 Bratislava
IČO: 00 164 381
DIČ: 202 079 87 25
Bankové spojenie: Štátna pokladnica IBAN: XX00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
(ďalej len „objednávateľ auditu“) (ďalej spolu len „zmluvné strany“).
ÚVODNÉ USTANOVENIA
1. Vykonávateľ auditu je úspešný uchádzač verejného obstarávania zákazky v zmysle § 117 zákona č. 343/2015 Z. z. o verejnom obstarávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov.
2. Pojmy použité v tejto zmluve týkajúce sa programov Xxxxxxxx a Európsky zbor solidarity sú definované v právnom základe programov uvedenom v čl. II, ods. 3, písm. a) a b) tejto zmluvy.
I. PREDMET ZMLUVY
1. Vykonávateľ auditu bol objednávateľom auditu menovaný ako nezávislý audítorský subjekt, ktorý bol poverený výkonom auditu podľa ods. 2 tohto článku na základe menovacieho dekrétu, ktorého vzor tvorí neoddeliteľnú súčasť tejto zmluvy ako Príloha č. 2. Zmluvné strany sa zaväzujú podpísať menovací dekrét po nadobudnutí účinnosti tejto zmluvy.
2. Predmetom tejto zmluvy je:
a) záväzok vykonávateľa auditu vykonávať pre objednávateľa auditu systémový audit (audit postupov a procedúr zavedených v národných agentúrach) a audit hospodárenia s finančnými prostriedkami pochádzajúcimi z grantovej podpory projektov financovaných alebo uzavretých v príslušnom kalendárnom roku, ktoré boli poskytnuté národným agentúram programov Erasmus+ a Európsky zbor solidarity – a to Slovenskej akademickej asociácii pre medzinárodnú spoluprácu ako Národnej agentúre Erasmus+ pre oblasť vzdelávania a odbornej prípravy a IUVENTE – Slovenskému inštitútu mládeže ako Národnej agentúre Erasmus+ pre oblasť mládeže a športu zodpovednej aj za program Európsky zbor solidarity (ďalej len „Národné agentúry“ alebo „NA“), a to na základe požiadaviek, štruktúry a formulárov uvedených v aktuálnej Príručke pre Národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu,
b) pravidelne raz ročne odovzdať objednávateľovi auditu výstupy auditu v dohodnutom termíne,
c) spolu s výstupmi auditu predložiť objednávateľovi auditu, v lehote podľa čl. II., ods. 4 tejto zmluvy, preklad výstupov auditu v anglickom jazyku, ktoré tvoria súčasť výstupov auditu. (ďalej len „vykonávanie auditu“).
3. Finančné prostriedky uvedené v ods. 2 tohto článku pochádzajú z grantovej podpory programov Xxxxxxxx a Európsky zbor solidarity, a ostatných aktivít, ktoré sú uvedené v podpísaných zmluvách medzi Európskou komisiou a národnými agentúrami (zmluva
o príspevku) na príslušný rok trvania programov Xxxxxxxx a Európsky zbor solidarity.
4. Predmet auditu je špecifikovaný v aktuálnom znení Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu, uvedenej v čl. II, ods. 3, písm. c) tejto zmluvy. Výstupom auditu budú:
a) výrok audítora k ročnému vyhláseniu riadiaceho subjektu NA (ďalej len „výrok audítora“), ktorého vzor je súčasťou aktuálneho znenia Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu,
b) správa audítora, ktorá obsahuje náležitosti uvedené v aktuálnom znení Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu,
c) zoznam pripomienok a odporúčaní, ktorého vzor je uvedený v aktuálnom znení Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu.
5. Objednávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje zaplatiť vykonávateľovi auditu za vykonávanie auditu cenu špecifikovanú v čl. III. tejto zmluvy za podmienky, že výstupy auditu zodpovedajú aktuálnemu zneniu Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu.
II. PRÁVA A POVINNOSTI ZMLUVNÝCH STRÁN
1. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje, že začne vykonávať audit za podmienok uvedených v tejto zmluve najneskôr deň nasledujúci po nadobudnutí účinnosti tejto zmluvy. Audit v zmysle
tejto zmluvy pozostáva z finančného auditu a zo systémového auditu. Systémový a finančný audit bude realizovať vykonávateľ auditu počas realizácie programov Erasmus+ a Európsky zbor solidarity v rokoch 2021 – 2022 tak, aby výrok audítora spolu so správou audítora a zoznamom pripomienok a odporúčaní bol objednávateľovi auditu odovzdaný v lehote podľa odseku 4 tohto článku. Výstup auditu bude zhrnutím systémového a finančného auditu. Nápravu prípadných zistení a realizáciu odporúčaní vyplývajúcich zo systémového a finančného auditu bude vykonávateľ auditu kontrolovať priebežne počas kalendárneho roka.
2. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje pri vykonávaní auditu postupovať s odbornou starostlivosťou, v súlade so všeobecne záväznými právnymi predpismi Slovenskej republiky, predovšetkým zákonom o štatutárnom audite a so štandardmi pre audit vydanými niektorou z medzinárodných organizácií, ktoré sú uvedené v aktuálnom znení Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu.
3. Vykonávateľ auditu je zároveň pri vykonávaní auditu povinný vychádzať z nasledujúcich dokumentov:
a) právny základ programu Erasmus+, ktorý predstavuje Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2021/817 z 20. mája 2021, ktorým sa zriaďuje Erasmus+: program Únie pre vzdelávanie a odbornú prípravu, mládež a šport a ktorým sa zrušuje nariadenie (EÚ) č. 1288/2013,
b) právny základ programu Európsky zbor solidarity, ktorý predstavuje Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2021/888 z 20. mája 2021, ktorým sa zriaďuje program Európsky zbor solidarity a zrušujú nariadenia (EÚ) 2018/1475 a (EÚ) č. 375/2014,
c) Príručka pre národné agentúry, vydaná Európskou komisiou pre aktuálny auditovaný rok,
d) Príručka pre národné orgány týkajúca sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu, vydaná Európskou komisiou pre aktuálny auditovaný rok,
e) Sprievodca programom Erasmus+ a Sprievodca programom Európsky zbor solidarity.
4. Vykonávateľ auditu je povinný vypracovať prvý výstup auditu zohľadňujúci obdobie roku 2021 do 15. marca 2022, prípadne do 30 dní nasledujúcich po nadobudnutí účinnosti tejto zmluvy, podľa toho, ktorá zo skutočností nastane neskôr. V roku 2023 je vykonávateľ auditu povinný vypracovať výstup auditu zohľadňujúci obdobie roku 2022 najneskôr do 15. marca 2023. Vykonávateľ auditu berie na vedomie, že tieto lehoty sú konečné a nemôžu byť za žiadnych okolností predĺžené.
5. Vykonávateľ auditu je povinný vypracovať výrok audítora, správu audítora a zoznam pripomienok a odporúčaní v slovenskom jazyku. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje zabezpečiť preklad výroku audítora, správy audítora a zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní do anglického jazyka.
6. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje pripojiť k výroku audítora kópie všetkých správ z auditov v slovenskom jazyku z vybranej vzorky projektov, ktoré tvoria podklad pre vypracovanie výroku audítora a ich papierovú a elektronickú verziu zaslať objednávateľovi auditu, národným agentúram a Európskej komisii podľa príslušnej časti aktuálnej Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu v nasledovných termínoch: v roku 2022 do 15. marca 2022, prípadne do 30 dní nasledujúcich po nadobudnutí účinnosti tejto zmluvy, podľa toho, ktorá zo skutočností nastane neskôr; v roku 2023 najneskôr do 15. marca 2023.
7. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje pri vypracúvaní zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní použiť Spoločný klasifikačný a hodnotiaci rámec podľa príslušnej časti aktuálnej Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu.
8. Objednávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje vytvoriť vykonávateľovi auditu podmienky pre riadne plnenie tejto zmluvy. Kópie dokumentov uvedených v ods. 3 tohto článku sa objednávateľ auditu zaväzuje odovzdať vykonávateľovi auditu bez zbytočného odkladu po nadobudnutí
účinnosti tejto zmluvy. Objednávateľ auditu sa súčasne zaväzuje bez zbytočného odkladu informovať vykonávateľa auditu o zmene dokumentov podľa ods. 3 tohto článku a odovzdať mu aktuálne znenie týchto dokumentov. Zmluvné strany vždy podpíšu Protokol o odovzdaní a prevzatí uvedených dokumentov, ktorý pripraví objednávateľ auditu.
9. Objednávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje zabezpečiť, že národné agentúry ako auditované subjekty pre potreby výkonu auditu:
a) predložia vykonávateľovi auditu všetky ním požadované doklady dokumentujúce finančné prostriedky pochádzajúce z grantovej podpory projektov financovaných alebo uzavretých v danom kalendárnom roku, ktoré sú potrebné pre správne vykonanie auditu, a to v lehote do 5 kalendárnych dní odo dňa písomnej výzvy vykonávateľa auditu,
b) poskytnú potrebnú súčinnosť pri vykonávaní auditu bez zbytočného odkladu po doručení písomnej výzvy vykonávateľa auditu.
10. Za doklady a iné materiály, ktoré budú poskytnuté vykonávateľovi auditu za účelom ich kontroly mimo sídla národných agentúr, zodpovedá v celom rozsahu vykonávateľ auditu, a to až do momentu ich vrátenia národným agentúram.
11. Vykonávateľ auditu je pri výkone auditu nestranný a nezávislý od auditovaného subjektu alebo od objednávateľa auditu. Dodržanie nezávislosti sa vyžaduje v priebehu obdobia, na ktoré sa vzťahuje vykonávanie auditu, a počas obdobia, v ktorom sa vykonáva audit.
12. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje vypracovať správu audítora a výrok audítora podľa medzinárodných audítorských štandardov uvedených v aktuálnom znení Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu. Výrok audítora musí spĺňať náležitosti ustanovené v aktuálnom znení Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu.
13. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje bezodplatne vypracovať nový výrok audítora, vrátane novej správy audítora a nového zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní, ak Európska komisia z akéhokoľvek dôvodu odmietne zaslaný výstup auditu; tým nie je dotknuté ustanovenie čl. IV tejto zmluvy.
14. Vykonávateľ auditu je povinný zachovať mlčanlivosť o všetkých skutočnostiach, o ktorých sa dozvedel v súvislosti s vykonávaním auditu. Táto povinnosť trvá aj po ukončení zmluvného vzťahu, a to bez časového obmedzenia.
15. Vykonávateľ auditu je povinný pri práci s osobnými údajmi dodržiavať ustanovenia zákona č. 18/2018 Z. z. o ochrane osobných údajov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov a nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/679 o ochrane fyzických osôb pri spracúvaní osobných údajov a o voľnom pohybe takýchto údajov, ktorým sa zrušuje smernica 95/46/ES (všeobecné nariadenie o ochrane údajov). Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje, že nepoužije informácie získané pri plnení predmetu zmluvy na iný účel, než bol dohodnutý touto zmluvou.
16. Vykonávateľ auditu bude nakladať s informáciami, dokladmi a inými materiálmi poskytnutými objednávateľom auditu alebo národnými agentúrami za účelom plnenia predmetu zmluvy ako s prísne dôvernými. Vykonávateľ auditu oznámi objednávateľovi auditu mená zamestnancov vykonávateľa auditu, vykonávajúcich činnosti súvisiace s plnením predmetu tejto zmluvy, najneskôr v deň začiatku výkonu auditu.
17. Za účelom kontroly zo strany Európskej komisie je vykonávateľ auditu povinný postupovať pri vypracúvaní výroku audítora štruktúrovane a postup audítora náležite písomne dokumentovať tak, aby bol celý proces vykonávania auditu písomne zaznamenaný. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje umožniť Európskej komisii a Európskemu dvoru audítorov úplný prístup ku všetkým dokumentom a správam použitým pri príprave výroku audítora k ročnému vyhláseniu riadiaceho subjektu NA.
18. Objednávateľ auditu je oprávnený vykonávať kontrolu procesu vykonávania auditu vykonávateľom auditu. Objednávateľ auditu je v tejto súvislosti oprávnený:
a) písomne žiadať od vykonávateľa auditu poskytnutie informácie o štádiu vykonávania auditu s predpokladaným dátumom vyhotovenia výroku audítora, správy audítora a zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní; vykonávateľ auditu je povinný odpovedať na žiadosť objednávateľa auditu bez zbytočného odkladu, najneskôr v lehote troch
(3) kalendárnych dní odo dňa doručenia tejto žiadosti,
b) nahliadnuť do náčrtu správy audítora a súvisiacich pracovných podkladov po ukončení jednotlivých častí auditu, podľa časti II. Prílohy č. 3 tejto zmluvy, za účelom kontroly súladu vykonaných prác v rámci auditu s podmienkami stanovenými touto zmluvou. V prípade zistenia nedostatkov je objednávateľ auditu oprávnený požadovať od vykonávateľa auditu vysvetlenie a zabezpečenie ich nápravy; tým nie je dotknuté ustanovenie čl. IV.
III. CENA A PLATOBNÉ PODMIENKY
1. Objednávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje uhradiť vykonávateľovi auditu za vykonávanie auditu v súlade s touto zmluvou celkovú cenu vo výške 79 800,- eur vrátane DPH (slovom sedemdesiatdeväťtisícosemsto eur vrátane DPH). Táto cena je rozložená na 2 časti počas 2 kalendárnych rokov účinnosti zmluvy (ďalej len „časť ceny“) podľa objemu auditovaných finančných prostriedkov, a to nasledovne:
a) Audit za rok 2021 uhradený v roku 2022 vo výške 37 944,- eur vrátane DPH
b) Audit za rok 2022 uhradený v roku 2023 vo výške 41 856,- eur vrátane DPH.
2. Cena za vykonanie auditu za príslušný rok trvania programov Xxxxxxxx a Európsky zbor solidarity podľa ods. 1 je konečná a zahŕňa aj úhradu výdavkov účelne vynaložených v priamej súvislosti s výkonom auditu.
3. Celková cena za vykonávanie auditu uvedená ods. 1 je ustanovená podľa zákona Národnej rady č. 18/1996 Z.z. o cenách v znení neskorších predpisov a vyhlášky Ministerstva financií Slovenskej republiky č. 87/1996 Z.z., ktorou sa vykonáva zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 18/1996 Z.z. o cenách v znení neskorších predpisov.
4. Objednávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje uhrádzať vykonávateľovi auditu jednotlivé časti ceny za vykonávanie auditu vo výške uvedenej v ods. l tohto článku každoročne, a to v dvoch splátkach. Prvá splátka vo výške 50 % z príslušnej časti ceny bude vykonávateľovi auditu uhradená po odovzdaní výstupu auditu podľa čl. I, ods. 4 tejto zmluvy najneskôr do 30 kalendárnych dní od doručenia faktúry objednávateľovi auditu. Vykonávateľ auditu je oprávnený vystaviť objednávateľovi auditu faktúru na prvú splátku príslušnej časti ceny po odovzdaní celého výstupu auditu v zmysle čl. I, ods. 4 tejto zmluvy. Druhá splátka vo výške 50 % z príslušnej časti ceny bude vykonávateľovi auditu uhradená po splnení podmienky, že Európska komisia po uplynutí lehoty na posúdenie výstupu auditu (90 kalendárnych dní odo dňa prijatia tohto výstupu) výstup auditu neodmietne. O výsledku posúdenia tohto výstupu je objednávateľ auditu povinný bezodkladne informovať vykonávateľa auditu. Po obdržaní informácie, že Európska komisia výstup auditu neodmietla, môže vykonávateľ auditu vystaviť faktúru na druhú splátku príslušnej časti ceny a doručiť ju objednávateľovi auditu. Objednávateľ auditu je povinný uhradiť uvedenú faktúru do 30 kalendárnych dní od jej doručenia.
5. Úhrada dohodnutej ceny sa bude realizovať bezhotovostne, bankovým prevodom v prospech účtu vykonávateľa auditu, a to na základe faktúr riadne vystavených vykonávateľom auditu.
6. Faktúra musí obsahovať náležitosti účtovného dokladu podľa § 74 zákona č. 222/2004
Z. z o dani z pridanej hodnoty v znení neskorších predpisov. V prípade, ak doručená faktúra nebude obsahovať všetky náležitosti účtovného dokladu, objednávateľ auditu je oprávnený faktúru vrátiť vykonávateľovi auditu na opravu alebo doplnenie. V takom prípade začína
plynúť nová lehota splatnosti po opätovnom doručení opravenej/doplnenej faktúry objednávateľovi auditu.
7. Za úhradu faktúry sa považuje odpísanie finančných prostriedkov z účtu objednávateľa auditu v prospech účtu vykonávateľa auditu v dobe splatnosti faktúry.
8. V prípade omeškania objednávateľa auditu s úhradou faktúry je vykonávateľ auditu oprávnený od objednávateľa auditu požadovať uhradenie úroku z omeškania podľa § 369a Obchodného zákonníka.
IV. ZODPOVEDNOSŤ ZA VADY VÝSTUPU AUDITU A ZODPOVEDNOSŤ ZA ŠKODU
1. Vykonávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje, že audit bude vykonávať riadne a včas, kvalitne a podľa podmienok dohodnutých v tejto zmluve a odovzdávať objednávateľovi auditu výstupy auditu, vrátane ich prekladov v cudzom jazyku v požadovanej kvalite, bez právnych a faktických vád.
2. Vykonávateľ auditu zodpovedá objednávateľovi auditu za vady, ktoré má výstup auditu v čase jeho odovzdania objednávateľovi auditu.Vykonávateľ auditu nezodpovedá za vady, ktorých príčinou sú nedostatky v dokladoch a iných materiáloch odovzdaných vykonávateľovi auditu objednávateľom auditu alebo NA. Zodpovednosť za vady sa spravuje ustanoveniami § 560 a nasl. Obchodného zákonníka.
3. Za vady výstupu auditu sa považujú oneskorene, nekvalitne alebo neúplne odovzdaný výstup auditu, s právnymi alebo faktickými vadami a výstup auditu vyhotovený v rozpore s touto zmluvou.
4. Ak má výstup auditu vady, je vykonávateľ auditu povinný tieto vady bezplatne odstrániť, bez zbytočného odkladu, najneskôr do 14 pracovných dní po ich písomnom oznámení objednávateľom auditu. V prípade, že Európska komisia odmietne výstup auditu, je vykonávateľ auditu povinný zopakovať audit a vypracovať nový výrok audítora, vrátane novej správy audítora a nového zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní (ďalej len „nový výstup auditu“) najneskôr do 30 pracovných dní odo dňa, keď ho o to písomne požiadal objednávateľ auditu. V prípade vypracovania nového výstupu auditu má vykonávateľ auditu nárok len na druhú splátku príslušnej časti ceny v zmysle čl. III ods. 4 tejto zmluvy, a to za predpokladu, že Európska komisia nový výstup auditu neodmietne. Tým nie je dotknuté právo objednávateľa auditu na náhradu škody, ani právo objednávateľa auditu odstúpiť od zmluvy.
5. Každá zmluvná strana zodpovedá druhej zmluvnej strane za škodu, ktorú spôsobí porušením povinností vyplývajúcich z tohto zaväzkového vzťahu, ibaže preukáže, že porušenie povinností bolo spôsobené okolnosťami vylučujúcimi zodpovednosť. Zodpovednosť za škodu sa spravuje ustanovením § 373 a nasl. Obchodného zákonníka.
6. Vykonávateľ auditu nezodpovedá objednávateľovi auditu za škodu, ktorá mu bola spôsobená v dôsledku omeškania objednávateľa auditu s plnením povinností podľa čl. II, ods. 8 a 9 tejto zmluvy.
7. Za škodu spôsobenú objednávateľovi auditu sa považuje najmä:
a) sankcia uložená objednávateľovi auditu zo strany Európskej komisie za nedodržanie lehoty stanovenej na predloženie výroku audítora k ročnému vyhláseniu riadiaceho subjektu NA (v roku 2022 do 15. marca 2022, prípadne do 30 dní nasledujúcich po nadobudnutí účinnosti tejto zmluvy, podľa toho, ktorá zo skutočností nastane neskôr; v roku 2023 najneskôr do 15. marca 2023),
b) sankcia uložená objednávateľovi auditu v dôsledku toho, že výrok audítora, vrátane správy audítora a zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní bol Európskou komisiou odmietnutý,
c) ďalšie náklady súvisiace s vypracovaním nového výroku audítora, správy audítora a zoznamu pripomienok a odporúčaní.
V. AUTORSKÉ PRÁVA K VÝSTUPOM AUDITU
1. Vykonávateľ auditu udeľuje objednávateľovi auditu výhradnú, bezodplatnú, vecne a územne neobmedzenú licenciu – súhlas na použitie výstupov auditu. Vykonávateľ auditu udeľuje objednávateľovi auditu licenciu na použitie výstupov auditu na čas trvania majetkových práv vykonávateľa auditu k výstupom auditu. Objednávateľ auditu je oprávnený udeliť Európskej komisii sublicenciu – súhlas na použitie výstupov auditu v rozsahu udelenej licencie. Ďalšie práva a povinnosti zmluvných strán sa spravujú ustanoveniami zákona č. 185/2015 Z. z. Autorský zákon v znení neskorších predpisov.
VI. TRVANIE A ZÁNIK ZMLUVY
1. Zmluva sa uzatvára na dobu určitú, a to do 30. 6. 2023.
2. Zmluva zaniká:
a) uplynutím doby, na ktorú je uzavretá,
b) písomnou dohodou zmluvných strán,
c) odstúpením od zmluvy.
3. Vykonávateľ auditu je oprávnený odstúpiť od tejto zmluvy len zo závažných dôvodov, najmä ak:
a) mu zaniklo oprávnenie na poskytovanie služieb, ktoré sú predmetom tejto zmluvy,
b) objednávateľ auditu neposkytuje vykonávateľovi auditu potrebnú súčinnosť a informácie nevyhnutné pre plnenie predmetu zmluvy, a to ani po predchádzajúcej písomnej výzve doručenej objednávateľovi auditu.
4. Objednávateľ auditu je oprávnený odstúpiť od zmluvy v prípade podstatného porušenia tejto zmluvy vykonávateľom auditu. Za podstatné porušenie tejto zmluvy sa považuje najmä vykonanie auditu v rozpore so všeobecne záväznými právnymi predpismi a inými právnymi predpismi uvedenými v tejto zmluve, v rozpore s touto zmluvou a jej prílohami, odovzdanie výstupu objednávateľovi auditu po uplynutí lehoty uvedenej v čl. II ods. 4 tejto zmluvy a vyhotovenie výstupu auditu, ktorý je Európskou komisiou odmietnutý. V prípade odstúpenia od zmluvy je vykonávateľ auditu povinný vrátiť objednávateľovi auditu celú časť ceny uhradenú podľa čl. III ods. 4 tejto zmluvy. Nárok vykonávateľa auditu na zaplatenie druhej splátky príslušnej časti ceny v zmysle čl. IV ods. 4 zmluvy tým nie je dotknutý. Zároveň nie je dotknuté právo objednávateľa auditu na náhradu škody.
5. V prípade odstúpenia od zmluvy z dôvodu odmietnutia výstupu auditu Európskou komisiou povinnosť vykonávateľa auditu vypracovať nový výstup auditu podľa čl. IV ods. 4 zmluvy trvá aj po ukončení tejto zmluvy, a to až do momentu prijatia nového výstupu auditu Európskou komisiou.
6. V prípade odstúpenia od zmluvy zanikne zmluva dňom, v ktorom bolo písomné odstúpenie od zmluvy doručené druhej zmluvnej strane.
7. Aj dôjde k ukončeniu zmluvy, je vykonávateľ auditu povinný odovzdať objednávateľovi auditu, prípadne národným agentúram, všetky doklady a iné materiály, ktoré mu do dňa ukončenia zmluvy objednávateľ auditu alebo národné agentúry poskytli (nevzťahuje sa na doklady, ktoré vykonávateľ auditu vytvoril počas auditu).
8. V prípade, že dôjde k ukončeniu zmluvy odstúpením od zmluvy z dôvodu, že Európska komisia odmietla výstup auditu a vykonávateľ auditu bude v nadväznosti na čl. VI, ods. 4 a v súlade s čl. IV tejto zmluvy povinný vypracovať nový výstup auditu aj po ukončení tejto zmluvy, povinnosť vykonávateľa auditu vrátiť doklady v zmysle predchádzajúceho odseku nevznikne dňom ukončenia zmluvy, ale dňom oznámenia prijatia nového výstupu auditu Európskou komisiou objednávateľovi auditu.
9. Zánik zmluvy nemá vplyv na práva a povinnosti zmluvných strán vyplývajúce zo zaniknutej zmluvy, ktoré vzhľadom na svoju povahu trvajú aj po zániku účinnosti zmluvy (napr. zodpovednosť za vady, zodpovednosť za škodu, povinnosť zaplatiť vykonávateľovi auditu odplatu a pod.).
VII. KOMUNIKÁCIA
1. Pokiaľ v zmluve alebo v jej prílohách nie je ustanovené inak, všetky oznámenia, vyhlásenia, žiadosti, výzvy a iné úkony súvisiace s plnením predmetu zmluvy (ďalej len „písomnosť“) musia byť urobené v písomnej forme a doručené na adresu druhej zmluvnej strany uvedenú v záhlaví tejto zmluvy a/alebo na inú adresu, ktorú oznámi zmluvná strana.
2. Písomnosť sa považuje za doručenú za nasledovných podmienok:
a) v prípade osobného doručenia odovzdaním písomnosti oprávnenej osobe alebo inej osobe oprávnenej prijímať písomnosti za túto zmluvnú stranu a podpisom takej osoby na doručenke a/alebo kópii doručovanej písomnosti alebo odmietnutím prevzatia písomnosti takou osobou,
b) v prípade doručovania prostredníctvom poštového podniku doručením na adresu zmluvnej strany a v prípade doporučenej zásielky odovzdaním písomnosti osobe oprávnenej prijímať písomnosti za túto zmluvnú stranu a podpisom takej osoby na doručenke, najneskôr však uplynutím troch (3) kalendárnych dní odo dňa uvedeného na podacom lístku, a to bez ohľadu na úspešnosť doručenia.
c) v prípade doručovania prostredníctvom elektronickej pošty sa písomnosť považuje za doručenú dňom nasledujúcim po dni jej odoslania na e-mailovú adresu písomne oznámenú druhou zmluvnou stranou na tento účel; to neplatí, ak zo servera použitého pri odosielaní elektronickej pošty je zrejmé, že k odoslaniu elektronickej pošty nedošlo.
VIII. ZÁVEREČNÉ USTANOVENIA
1. Táto zmluva nadobúda platnosť dňom jej podpisu obidvoma zmluvnými stranami a účinnosť dňom nasledujúcim po dni jej zverejnenia v Centrálnom registri zmlúv vedenom Úradom vlády Slovenskej republiky.
2. Túto zmluvu je možné meniť a dopĺňať iba riadne očíslovanými písomnými dodatkami podpísanými obidvoma zmluvnými stranami, ktoré budú neoddeliteľnou súčasťou tejto zmluvy.
3. Právne vzťahy touto zmluvou výslovne neupravené sa riadia príslušnými ustanoveniami Obchodného zákonníka, zákona o štatutárnom audite a ďalšími všeobecne záväznými právnmi predpismi Slovenskej republiky a Európskej únie.
4. Objednávateľ auditu súhlasí, aby vykonávateľ auditu v prípade ukončenia tejto zmluvy mohol komunikovať s nastupujúcim audítorom/audítorskou spoločnosťou v zmysle § 32 ods. 6 zákona o štatutárnom audite.
5. Zmluva sa vyhotovuje v šiestich (6) rovnopisoch v slovenskom jazyku, pričom objednávateľ auditu obdrží štyri (4) a vykonávateľ auditu obdrží dva (2) rovnopisy.
6. Zmluvné strany vyhlasujú, že si zmluvu prečítali, jej obsahu porozumeli a tento zodpovedá skutočnému prejavu ich vôle, a na znak súhlasu ju podpisujú.
7. Neoddeliteľnou súčasťou tejto zmluvy sú:
a) Prílohy č. 1: aktuálna Príručka pre Národné orgány týkajúca sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu
b) Príloha č. 2: Vzor menovacieho dekrétu
c) Príloha č. 3: Podrobnosti o výkone auditu.
V Bratislave dňa ......................... V Bratislave dňa ............................
Za vykonávateľa auditu Xxx. Xxxxx Xxxxx, MSc konateľ | Za objednávateľa auditu Mgr. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx minister |
Príloha č. 2 k Zmluve o audite
Bratislava DD.MM.RRRR Číslo:
MENOVACÍ DEKRÉT
V súlade s ustanoveniami Zmluvy o audite uzavretej medzi spoločnosťou (NÁZOV) a Ministerstvom školstva,vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republiky zo dňa (DD.MM.RRRRR)
vymenúvam
za nezávislý audítorský subjekt spoločnosť (NÁZOV), číslo licencie , zapísanú v Obchodnom
registri Okresného súdu ............................., oddiel Sro, vložka číslo , zastúpenú (MENO
PRIEZVISKO), zodpovedný/-á audítor/-ka, č. licencie ...... so sídlom ,
IČO ............................, DIČ .............................., IČ DPH ..................
Spoločnosť (NÁZOV) súhlasí s menovaním do funkcie nezávislého audítorského subjektu v zmysle Zmluvy o audite.
..................................................................
(meno a priezvisko štatutárneho orgánu spoločnosti)
V Bratislave DD.MM.RRRR
..............................................
(meno, priezvisko, funkcia)
Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republiky
Príloha č. 3 k Zmluve o audite
Podrobnosti o výkone auditu
Nasledujúci text vychádza z Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu. Jeho obsah podlieha zmenám vydaním novej verzie Príručky.
I. Predmet auditu
1. Cieľom auditu podľa čl. I. Zmluvy o audite č je zaujatie stanoviska vykonávateľa
auditu k otázkam, či
a. Účty, ako sú uvedené vo výročnej správe národnej agentúry (NA) a priložené k ročnému vyhláseniu riadiaceho subjektu NA, poskytujú pravdivý a úplný prehľad o aktivitách vykonaných v rámci implementácie programu Erasmus+ a či je ročné vyhlásenie riadiaceho subjektu NA výsledkom dôveryhodného účtovného systému a je založené na overiteľných podporných dokumentoch.
b. Systém vnútornej kontroly zavedený NA je v súlade s ustanoveniami zmluvy o príspevku uzatvorenej medzi Európskou komisiou a NA (ďalej aj „zmluva o príspevku“), riadne funguje, je nákladovo efektívny a zaručuje (a) zákonnosť a správnosť príslušných operácií, (b) ochranu majetku a informácií a (c) prevenciu, odhalenie, nápravu, preskúmanie a prešetrenie podvodov a nezrovnalostí.
c. Príslušné operácie sú zákonné a úplné, či sú v súlade s pravidlami Európskej Únie a ustanoveniami zmluvy o príspevku, ktoré sa na ne vzťahujú, či výdavky uvádzané v ročnom vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA sú oprávnené pre financovanie Európskou úniou a či sú v súlade so zásadami uvedenými v Príručke pre NA.
2. Výsledkom auditu je výrok audítora, správa audítora a zoznam pripomienok a odporúčaní. Výrok audítora obsahuje náležitosti a je vypracovaný v zmysle aktuálnej Príručky pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu. Audítor je vo výroku audítora povinný vyjadriť, či spochybňuje alebo nespochybňuje tvrdenia obsiahnuté vo Vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA.
II. Rozsah auditu
1. Rozsah auditu za účelom prípravy výroku audítora zahŕňa nasledujúce zložky:
Finančné správy NA týkajúce sa finančných prostriedkov z grantovej podpory pre programy Xxxxxxxx a Európsky zbor solidarity. Audit je zameraný na kontrolu:
i. ročnej finančnej správy NA o finančných prostriedkoch z grantovej podpory v rámci programu Erasmus+ a Európsky zbor solidarity,
ii. ročnej finančnej správy NA pre všetky otvorené zmluvy uzatvorené medzi Európskou komisiou a NA týkajúce sa predchádzajúceho programu Erasmus+ (2014 – 2020). Vykonávateľ auditu je povinný využívať ročné finančné správy NA ako základný materiál pre jeho prácu. Tieto správy mu umožnia získať aglomerované údaje
o finančných transakciách v rámci daného roka, ako aj o počiatočnom a záverečnom stave na účtoch NA v danom roku. Objednávateľ auditu sa zaväzuje zabezpečiť pre vykonávateľa auditu podrobnosti o transakciách, ktoré sú v súlade s údajmi uvedeného aglomerátu údajov.
Výrok audítora musí konštatovať či
i. účtovníctvo zaznamenávajúce vzniknuté výdavky v rámci zmlúv uzatvorených medzi Európskou komisiou a NA podáva pravdivý a reálny obraz finančných transakcií,
ii. zavedené kontrolné systémy fungujú riadne a sú nákladovo efektívne,
iii. príslušné finančné transakcie sú zákonné a správne.
2. Systém vnútornej kontroly
Výrok audítora musí konštatovať, či zavedený systém vnútornej kontroly NA poskytuje nevyhnutné záruky zákonnosti a správnosti príslušných transakcií. Vykonávateľ auditu osvedčí, či systém vnútornej kontroly NA je v súlade s požiadavkami Európskej Komisie. Príručka pre NA popisuje štandardy vnútorných kontrol operácií národnej agentúry, ako aj systém a postupy týkajúce sa riadenia životného cyklu projektu a riadenia zmluvy o delegovaní. Štandardy vnútornej kontroly národnej agentúry zahŕňajú taktiež kontrolu riadenia v súvislosti s ročným pracovným programom NA, riadením rizika a štruktúrou riadenia. Rozsah prác audítorov zahŕňa taktiež
i. kontrolu súladu príslušnej časti (Kvalita systému riadenia NA) pracovného programu NA s praktickým výkonom NA a
ii. kontrolu dôveryhodnosti príslušných finančných a štatistických výkazov vo Výročnej správe o činnosti NA.
3. Kontroly príjemcov grantov
NA vykonáva kontrolu grantu poskytnutého príjemcom (takzvanú primárnu kontrolu) za účelom uistenia sa o skutočnosti a oprávnenosti aktivít podporených finančnými prostriedkami Európskej únie, ako aj o zákonnosti a správnosti relevantných operácií. Minimum pre primárne kontroly je stanovené Európskou komisiou v absolútnych počtoch a percentách. Všeobecné zásady, ako aj súvisiace systémy a postupy, sú podrobne uvedené v Príručke pre NA a jej prílohách. Vykonávateľ auditu je povinný kontrolovať:
i. či správy NA o primárnych kontrolách v systéme EPLusLink/PMM sú správne a dôveryhodné,
ii. či NA vykonáva primárnu kontrolu v súlade s podmienkami stanovenými v Príručke pre NA (výber, vykonanie, vykazovanie),
iii. hodnotenie výsledkov primárnych kontrol NA (úroveň chybovosti), dôvody, nápravné opatrenia, a ak je potrebné, aj zmeny kontrolnej stratégie NA.
4. Aktivity nadnárodnej spolupráce medzi národnými agentúrami (TCA)
NA používa časť finančných prostriedkov z grantovej podpory pre program Erasmus+ pre aktivity nadnárodnej spolupráce medzi národnými agentúrami v rozličných oblastiach vzdelávania, odbornej prípravy a mládeže, alebo naprieč sektormi. Účelom použitia týchto finančných prostriedkov je podpora nadnárodnej spolupráce medzi národnými agentúrami v oblastiach, v ktorých sa očakáva vysoká pridaná hodnota a kvalita takejto spolupráce a výsledky vedúce k zvýšeniu dopadu programu na systémovej úrovni.
Xxxxxxxx podpora pre TCA je založená na skutočných nákladoch s osobitnými pravidlami oprávnenosti výdavkov, kým financovanie decentralizovaných aktivít Xxxxxxxx sa realizuje zväčša na základe jednotkových nákladov. Aktivity TCA musia byť schválené GR pre vzdelávanie a kultúru v aktuálnom pracovnom pláne NA. Vykonávateľ auditu v rámci prístupu k vykonávaniu auditu musí zohľadňovať uvedené špecifikum. Viac podrobností o uplatňovaných podmienkach financovania sa uvádza v Príručke pre NA.
5. Aktivity vytvárania sietí v rámci Európskeho zboru solidarity (ESC)
Aktivity vytvárania sietí sú nástrojom NA na dosahovanie cieľov a priorít ESC. NA môže organizovať Nadnárodné aktivity vytvárania sietí (TNA) medzi NA a/alebo Národné aktivity a podujatia (NNA) organizované NA. Zdroje vyčlenené na každú akciu ESC sú špecifikované v Zmluve o delegovaní, resp. Zmluve o príspevku.
Je dôležité zdôrazniť, že táto grantová podpora je založená na osobitných pravidlách oprávnenosti, musí byť schválená GR pre vzdelávanie a kultúru v aktuálnom pracovnom pláne NA a udeľuje sa na základe reálnych nákladov, kým financovanie decentralizovaných aktivít Xxxxxxxx sa realizuje zväčša na základe jednotkových nákladov. Prístup audítora musí zohľadniť tieto odlišnosti a byť primeraný k prideleným čiastkam.
6. Školiaci a hodnotiaci cyklus pre účastníkov Európskeho zboru solidarity (TEC)
Špecifické vzdelávanie pre účastníkov a organizácie o aktivitách spojených so solidaritou (školiaci a hodnotiaci cyklus (TEC)) má za cieľ zlepšiť úroveň pripravenosti mladých ľudí zúčastňujúcich sa aktivít cezhraničnej solidarity. TEC sa tiež zameriava na organizácie s cieľom poskytnúť odbornú prípravu organizáciám novo oceneným značkou kvality o základných črtách programu.
Je dôležité uviesť, že grantová podpora TEC je založená na skutočných nákladoch s osobitnými pravidlami oprávnenosti výdavkov, kým financovanie decentralizovaných projektov Xxxxxxxx sa realizuje zväčša na základe jednotkových nákladov. Prístup audítora musí zohľadniť tieto odlišnosti.
7. Vzdelávací cyklus DiscoverEU pre účastníkov DiscoverEU
DiscoverEU ponúka mladým ľuďom vo veku 18 rokov a viac príležitosť absolvovať krátkodobé individuálne alebo skupinové cesty naprieč Európou prostredníctvom železnice, alebo inými dopravnými prostriedkami. Vzdelávací cyklus DiscoverEU pozostáva z aktivít na podporu kvality, aby sa zabezpečili najlepšie vzdelávacie skúsenosti účastníkov.
Je dôležité zdôrazniť, že táto grantová podpora je založená na osobitných pravidlách oprávnenosti a udeľuje sa na základe reálnych nákladov, kým financovanie decentralizovaných aktivít Xxxxxxxx sa realizuje zväčša na základe jednotkových nákladov. Prístup audítora musí zohľadniť tieto odlišnosti.
8. Siete (Národný tím pre odborné vzdelávanie a prípravu, Eurodesk)
Popri finančných prostriedkoch pre grantovú podporu a príspevku na náklady na riadenie NA, Európska komisia taktiež prispieva na siete. Príspevok na siete je založený na oprávnených nákladoch s osobitnými pravidlami oprávnenosti výdavkov (iba výdavky, ktoré sú identifikovateľné a kontrolovateľné a zaznamenané v účtovníctve alebo daňových dokladoch NA, sú oprávnené). Prístup vykonávateľa auditu k auditu týchto finančných prostriedkov musí zohľadňovať toto špecifikum. IAB sa musí vysloviť, či
(a) príslušné účty NA a finančné správy priložené v ročnom vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA poskytujú pravdivý a úplný prehľad finančných transakcií a
(b) nedošlo k prekrytiu/dvojitému financovaniu nákladov medzi príspevkom EÚ na náklady na riadenie NA a podporou EÚ na národné aktivity sietí (Národný tím pre odborné
vzdelávanie a prípravu, Eurodesk) vrátane úloh týkajúcich sa Európskeho zboru solidarity, ak je to potrebné.
9. Príspevok EÚ na náklady na riadenie
Prístup audítora: analytické preskúmanie. Podrobné testovanie jednotlivých operácií iba ak to bude nevyhnutné.
III. Prípravné práce
1. Audítorský postup musí zahŕňať nasledujúce kroky:
a. Oboznámenie sa s právnym základom programov Erasmus+ a Európsky zbor solidarity, zmluvami o delegovaní a zmluvami o príspevku (program Erasmus+ a Európsky zbor solidarity), ako aj s Príručkou pre NA.
b. Systém vnútornej kontroly zavedený NA je v súlade so zmluvnými ustanoveniami riadne funguje, je nákladovo efektívny a zaručuje
• zákonnosť a správnosť príslušných finančných transakcií,
• ochranu majetku a informácií a
• prevenciu, odhalenie, nápravu a prešetrenie podvodov a nezrovnalostí.
c. Kontrola spoľahlivosti a presnosti finančných informácií vykázaných vo finančných tabuľkách ročného vyhlásenia riadiaceho subjektu NA vykonaním podrobnej kontroly na základe vzorky.
d. Proces overovania: preskúmanie zákonnosti a správnosti každej finančnej transakcie vybranej za účelom zaradenia do vzorky. Vzorka sa musí sústrediť na transakcie NA v roku N týkajúce sa všetkých otvorených zmlúv o delegovaní/zmlúv o príspevku (Erasmus+/ESC) uvedených Komisiou v prílohe k oznámeniu výsledkov hodnotenia vyhlásenia riadiaceho subjektu NA v roku N-1. Ak sa vykonávateľ auditu môže spoľahnúť na výsledky auditu týkajúceho sa výročnej správy NA za rok N-1 a ak sú záverečné údaje N-1 zhodné s otvorenými údajmi N, proces overovania môže obmedziť len na vzorky čerpané z transakcií NA v roku N.
2. S ohľadom na postup kontroly ročného vyhlásenia riadiaceho subjektu NA by mali byť zvážené nasledovné skutočnosti:
a. metóda výberu vzorky: odporúča sa uplatňovanie metódy „Monetary-Unit Sampling (MUS)“. Táto metóda je taktiež známa ako „probability-propotionalto-size sampling, ktorá je široko akceptovaná medzi audítormi,
b. veľkosť vzorky: musí byť štatisticky reprezentatívna pre súbor. V takýchto prípadoch je odporúčané, aby bol výpočet veľkosti vzorky založený na nasledovných parametroch:
• Všeobecne akceptovaná 95 % konfidenčná úroveň náčrtu záveru na celý súbor.
• Prípustná miera chybovosti „Tolerable error rate“. Prípustná miera chybovosti je založená na hodnotení rizika, napríklad na hodnotení systému vnútornej kontroly národnej agentúry. Ide o fixnú úroveň 2 %.
c. V každom prípade by veľkosť vzorky mala pozostávať najmenej z 30 transakcií pre Erasmus+ a prípadne z 10 transakcií pre Európsky zbor solidarity
d. Všetky zistené chyby musia byť uvedené v správe audítora, aby bolo možné vykonať možné opravy.
e. Celková chybovosť týkajúca sa súboru musí byť porovnaná s úrovňou závažnosti, aby bolo možné poskytnúť upravený alebo neupravený výrok.
f. Ak vybraná vzorka je štatisticky reprezentatívna, miera zistenej chybovosti môže byť extrapolovaná k súboru. Správa audítora musí uviesť veľkosť vzorky, jej pokrytie v hodnote a počte transakcií, ako aj veľkosť súboru.
IV. Práca v teréne (vo vzťahu k finančným správam)
1. IAB bude skúmať zoznamy kontrolovaných zložiek ročného vyhlásenia riadiaceho subjektu NA o sumách udelených grantov, vykonaných platbách a vymáhaných sumách podľa druhu aktivity a individuálnych projektov a porovnávať ich s finančnými tabuľkami; bude kontrolovať administratívnu presnosť záznamov. IAB bude v správe audítora uvádzať všetky zistené odchýlky.
2. IAB bude porovnávať jednotlivé transakcie (udelené granty, splátky predfinancovania vyplatené príjemcovi grantu, platbu zostatku grantu príjemcom grantov, platby a vratky Komisii, vydané príkazy na vymáhanie, uznanie a vzdanie sa práv, uznané úroky,...) s účtovným systémom NA. IAB vykoná porovnanie medzi účtovným systémom NA a používanými riadiacimi informačnými systémami (môžu to byť systémy zodpovedajúce systémom NA alebo Európskej komisie, ako sú EPlusLink/PMM) alebo urobí kontrolu porovnaní, ktoré vykonala NA. IAB bude hlásiť zistené odchýlky a vysloví celkový záver o zhode transakcií, majetku a záväzkov vzťahujúcich sa k realizovaným aktivitám alebo spôsobu, ako boli zaznamenané v účtovníctve.
3. IAB bude osvedčovať relevantné dokumenty (žiadosť o grant, správy, výpis z účtu, dokumenty ako faktúry, letenka, prezenčné listiny a pod.) vzťahujúce sa na jednotlivé transakcie (výpisy z účtu s platbami prijatými od Komisie, rozhodnutie o udelení grantu, príkaz na platbu, aktuálny výpis z banky týkajúci sa platby, správy o kontraktoch, výpočtový list na stanovenie konečnej výšky grantu, žiadosti o vratky, bankové výpisy týkajúce sa vratiek, odpustenie vratky, právne postupy na uplatnenie si nároku na vratky alebo na riešenie údajných podvodov, dokumenty ako sú brožúry, zápisnice, správy, publikácie a pod.).
4. V štádiu udelenia grantu bude IAB kontrolovať, či boli splnené minimálne požiadavky na výber projektu a určenie výšky grantu. IAB bude taktiež kontrolovať, či zmluvy o grante (kontrakty) v národnom jazyku použitom NA zodpovedajú štandardnému textu zmluvy o grante poskytnutému Komisiou v Prílohe k Príručke pre NA. Ak je to potrebné, IAB bude kontrolovať, či údaje týkajúce sa projektov a grantov v ročnom vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA boli zapísané do databáz Európskej komisie, ako sú EPlusLink/PMM.
5. Na základe prijatých záverečných správ z projektov bude IAB kontrolovať, či konečná výška grantu je správne určená, berúc pri tom do úvahy oprávnenosť nárokovaných nákladov, denné sadzby pre účastníkov mobilít v projektoch a použité jednotkové náklady.
6. IAB bude analyzovať, na akom základe NA vyberala projekty pre kontrolu materiálov a podporných dokumentov a pre kontroly na mieste, či zamestnanci vykonávajúci tieto kontroly sú spôsobilí na ich výkon a či nejde o jednu zo situácií považovaných za konflikt záujmov. IAB bude kontrolovať, či kritériá na výber uvedených projektov berú do úvahy aj opakujúcich sa príjemcov.
7. IAB bude vykonávať nasledovné kontroly:
a. Preskúmanie toho, či kontroly materiálov a podporných dokumentov (primárne kontroly) alebo kontroly na mieste boli riadne zdokumentované a viedli k správnemu záveru. IAB preverí relevantnosť kontroly vykonanej na mieste. IAB overí, ako NA preveruje verejné obstarávanie realizované príjemcami grantov v rámci realizácie svojich projektov (v prípadoch, keď je to aplikovateľné).
b. Kontrola, či v rámci grantov boli vyplatené aj ďalšie finančné prostriedky, napr. z dofinancovania projektov zo štátneho rozpočtu, okrem tých, ktoré boli pridelené Európskou komisiou a rozhodne, či akýkoľvek grant viedol príjemcu k tvorbe zisku.
c. Kontrola, či nasledovné položky (hlásenie výnimiek) sú riadne zahrnuté vo Výročných finančných správach NA:
• finančné nápravy vyplývajúce z uvedených kontrol,
• odpustenie žiadosti o vratku,
• nezaplatené vratky,
• očakávané refundácie žiadostí o vratky, a to predovšetkým z už uzavretých zmlúv o grante s príjemcami,
• nevyriešené prípady podvodu.
d. Kontrola prešetrenia prípadov podvodov vyplývajúcich zo zmlúv o grantoch z predchádzajúcich decentralizovaných akcií a sledovanie príslušných transakcií pomocou podporných dokumentov.
e. Kontrola, či majú NA riadny systém evidencie a sledovania vratiek (refundácie, ktoré majú byť vykonané v dôsledku uskutočnenej kontroly, alebo v prípade, že platby predfinancovania sú vyššie, ako je konečná výška grantu).
f. Kontroly, či nevykonané žiadosti o vratky boli Komisii riadne oznámené.
g. Porovnanie správy o žiadostiach o vratky s internými informačnými a kontrolnými nástrojmi NA.
h. Na základe podkladových dokumentov sledovanie príslušných transakcií (refundácie, odpustenie vratiek, vystavenie nových žiadostí o vratky).
i. Kontrola, či žiadosti o odpustenie vratky nad 200 € boli formálne Komisiou schválené.
j. Kontrola existencie všetkých bankových účtov. Kontrola, či povaha týchto bankových účtov zodpovedá tomu, čo bolo uvedené vo výročnej správe NA. Kontrola, či sú vedené v mene euro.
k. Kontrola, či bankové účty patria NA, resp. strešnej organizácii danej NA.
l. Kontrola, či všetky bankové účty sú úročené a či tu nie je vyplývajúce riziko straty zdrojov, resp. akú stratégiu prijala NA voči riziku negatívneho úroku na bankových účtoch.
m. Kontrola, či všetky finančné prostriedky týkajúce sa grantov na decentralizované akcie sú spravované prostredníctvom zverejnených bankových účtov.
n. Kontrola, či nie sú žiadne iné finančné prostriedky, okrem grantov na decentralizované aktivity, spravované prostredníctvom bankových účtov uvedených v ročnom vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA.
o. Odsúhlasenie zhody počiatočného stavu a konečného stavu na bankových účtoch NA s výpismi na bankových účtoch.
p. Kontrola administratívnej presnosti finančných správ zahrnutých do Výročnej správy NA.
q. Kontroly, či nevykonané žiadosti o vratky boli Komisii riadne oznámené.
r. Porovnanie správy o žiadostiach o vratky s internými informačnými a kontrolnými nástrojmi NA.
s. Na základe podkladových dokumentov sledovanie príslušných transakcií (refundácie, odpustenie vratiek, vystavenie nových žiadostí o vratky).
t. Kontrola, či žiadosti o odpustenie vratky boli formálne Komisiou schválené.
u. Kontrola existencie všetkých bankových účtov. Kontrola, či povaha týchto bankových účtov zodpovedá tomu, čo bolo uvedené vo výročnej správe NA.
v. Porovnanie finančných transakcií z alebo na bankové účty patriace NA.
w. Vyhľadávanie získaných alebo vzniknutých úrokov na bankových účtoch NA, kontrola, či daň zrazená z úrokov na bankových účtoch je náležite uvedená v ročnom vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA. Porovnanie výpisov o úrokoch na bankových účtoch s úrokom uvedeným v správe o získaných úrokoch na bankových účtoch NA (termín predloženia tejto správy je 15. január roka N+1).
x. Vyhľadávanie – na základe vzorky – transakcií zahrňujúcich platby prijaté z alebo urobené v prospech Komisie na bankových účtoch NA podľa príslušných dokumentov a účtovníctva. Podľa účtovníctva kontrola počiatočných a konečných stavov na výpisoch z bankových účtov.
y. Kontrola, či bankové poplatky sú financované z rozpočtu na činnosť NA; preverenie použitia príspevku EÚ na činnosť NA.
z. Kontrola, či celkové množstvo finančných transakcií urobených zo zverejnených bankových účtov sa rovná splátkam uskutočneným na bankové účty príjemcov grantov. Zladenie všetkých nezrovnalostí.
aa. Preskúmanie monitorovacieho systému NA na spravovanie výnimiek ohľadom COVID- 19.
bb. Doplňujúce hodnotenie systémov a postupov týkajúcich sa vylúčenia z prístupu k financovaniu, zverejňovania informácií o príjemcoch a ochrany osobných údajov.
cc. Zoznam všetkých zistených odchýlok/nálezov, ich prediskutovanie s vedením NA a predloženie dôkazov podporujúce ich záver. Audítori nesmú automaticky extrapolovať výsledky zistených chýb.
Postup prerokovania: Na záver prác v teréne IAB zorganizuje stretnutie s vedením NA a predloží mu zoznam všetkých nálezov (opis nálezu, základ nálezu, finančný vplyv na prípustnú mieru chybovosti, opakujúci sa nález alebo prvý výskyt nálezu), ktoré zamýšľa zahrnúť do správy audítora. NA bude vyzvaná, aby sa k zisteným nálezom vyjadrila v primeranej lehote (nie dlhšej ako 1 týždeň od uvedeného stretnutia).
V stanovisku IAB musí byť tiež uvedené, či IAB spochybní alebo nespochybní tvrdenia a závery uvedené v ročnom vyhlásení riadiaceho subjektu NA.
IAB pred odoslaním návrhu audítorskej správy NAU preverí kompletnosť audítorskej správy prostredníctvom dodaného kontrolného zoznamu vypracovaného Európskou komisiou („Completeness checklist for the IAB audit report“).
V. Správa audítora
Správa audítora musí zahŕňať nasledujúce informácie:
a. ciele a rozsahu auditu a obmedzenia jeho rozsahu,
b. zhrnutie spôsobu vykonania auditu (povaha a počet vykonaných overení, počet vybraných projektov, pokrytie, dátum začatia a skončenia prác v teréne, zloženie tímu na výkon auditu, odkazy na medzinárodne akceptovateľné štandardy auditu, odkazy na úroveň závažnosti, ...),
c. počet projektových zložiek preskúmaných v súvislosti s primárnymi kontrolami (špecifikácia podľa typu primárnej kontroly),
d. Výrok audítora,
e. súhrnná tabuľka zahrňujúca všetky oprávnené a neoprávnené náklady vo vyúčtovaní projektov,
f. príloha obsahujúca všetky nálezy uvedené v správe audítora, právny a zmluvný odkaz na podstatu nálezu, dôvod neoprávnenosti nákladov, finančný vplyv, prijaté nápravné opatrenia alebo úkony, ich ojedinelá povaha alebo systematická povaha, štádium, ku ktorému sa nález vzťahuje (udelenie grantu, platba...),
g. oficiálne stanovisko NA vyplývajúce z prerokovania správy audítora,
h. stanovisko vykonávateľa auditu k stanovisku NA k správe audítora explicitne uvádzajúce tie položky v správe audítora, ktoré neboli objasnené.
Vzor správy audítora je uvedený v aktuálnej Príručke pre národné orgány týkajúcej sa povinností nezávislého audítorského subjektu.
Ref. Ares(2021)6117044 - 07/10/2021
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EDUCATION, YOUTH, SPORT AND CULTURE
Performance Management, Supervision and Resources
Organisational Performance, Supervision and Legal Affairs
Erasmus+ Programme 2021-2027
European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027
2021 Guidelines for National Authorities in relation to the responsibilities of the Independent Audit Body
30/09/2021
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (00-0) 000 00 00. Office: J-70 2/266. Telephone: direct line (00-0) 000.00.00.
xxxx://xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxx/xxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. Legal framework relating to the National Authorities 2
2.1. Responsibilities of the National Authority 3
2.2. Responsibilities of the IAB 3
3.1. Requirements for designation 4
3.3. Countries with more than one NA and/or NAU 6
4. Audit scope and objectives for the IAB 6
4.1. NA's financial reports related to funds for grant support for Xxxxxxxx and the European Solidarity Corps 7
4.2. NA's internal control system 7
4.3. Checks of grant beneficiaries 8
4.4. Training and cooperation activities between NAs (TCA) 8
4.5. Networking Activities under the European Solidarity Corps (NET) 9
4.6. Training and Evaluation Cycle for European Solidarity Corps participants and organisations (TEC) 9
4.7. DiscoverEU Learning Cycle for DiscoverEU participants 10
4.8. Networks (ECVET/National VET Teams, Eurodesk, SALTO) 10
4.9. EU contribution to management costs for Xxxxxxxx and the European Solidarity Corps 11
4.10. Specific guidance for NAs for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic 12
4.11. Procurement and subcontracting 13
5. Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes (2021-2027) 13
6.1. NA's internal control system 14
6.4. Checks of grant beneficiaries 19
6.5. Documentation of audits 19
6.6. Indicative work programmes 20
7.2. Classification and rating framework for observations/recommendations 21
7.3. Reporting on observations/recommendations 23
8. Communications and timetable 25
ANNEX 1 Designation of the independent audit body 28
ANNEX 2 Template for the Audit opinion 29
ANNEX 3 Template for Yearly Management Declaration 33
ANNEX 4 Example of Terms of Reference for the Independent Audit Body (IAB) 38
ANNEX 5 Classification framework for observations 45
ANNEX 6 Completeness checklist for the IAB audit report 48
ANNEX 7 Indicative audit programme (IAP) for systems review for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps 50
ANNEX 8.1 Checklist for ERASMUS+ (2014-2020) and European Solidarity Corps (2018 2020) Project life-cycle management assessment 70
ANNEX 8.2 Checklist for ERASMUS+ and European Solidarity Corps Project (2021-2027) life- cycle management assessment 73
ANNEX 9.1 Indicative audit programme (IAP) for substantive testing 77
ANNEX 9.2 Indicative audit programme on protection of personal data 85
ANNEX 10 List of transactions tested for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps 89
ANNEX 11 List of primary checks tested for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps 90
ANNEX 12 Cost-effectiveness of NA’s control systems 91
ANNEX 13 Template audit report 92
1. Objective
The aim of this document is to provide the National Authorities (hereinafter also referred to as "NAU") of Programme countries and Independent Audit Bodies (hereinafter also referred to as "IAB") with guidelines on the preparation of the yearly IAB Opinion for the Erasmus+ Programme (2014- 2020 and 2021-2027) as well as the European Solidarity Corps Programme (2018-2020 and 2021- 2027).
This document considers, in parallel, the terminology, rules and IT tools related to the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes 2021-2027 and to the previous generation of the programmes.
As the 2021-2027 programmes have only started recently, the vast majority of the IAB’s work will remain focused on the previous generation of the programmes, with only the selection elements of the 2021-2027 programmes being available for potential audit.
2. Legal framework relating to the National Authorities
In the framework of the Erasmus+ Programme and the European Solidarity Corps, the responsibilities of the Programme countries for the Programme implementation are carried out by the NAUs who monitor and supervise the management of Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps in accordance with its legal basis1.
The legal basis of the Erasmus+ Programme and the European Solidarity Corps establishes the National Agency (hereinafter referred to as "NA") as the entity in the Programme country entrusted with indirect management of the Programme. The Programme country can designate more than one NA in that country.
In accordance with the Financial Regulation2 of the European Union, entities entrusted with indirect management, i.e. NAs, shall respect the principles of sound financial management, transparency, non- discrimination and visibility of Union action. It shall also be subject to an independent external audit performed in accordance with internationally accepted auditing standards by an audit service that is functionally independent of the entity concerned. The NA is responsible for the overall project life- cycle management of the decentralised part of both programmes. Each NA must prepare a NA Management Declaration annually as part of its activity. This NA Management Declaration shall be accompanied by an IAB Opinion.
1 Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+ : the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport
Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme
Art 27 of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing 'Erasmus+': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport.
Art 18 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 establishing the 'European Solidarity Corps.'
2 Art 154.2 and 154.4(c) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
The Commission ensures proper coordination of its controls with NAUs and the NAs on the Programme funds transferred to the NAs on the basis of the single audit principle and following a risk- based analysis3.
2.1. Responsibilities of the National Authority
In accordance with the legal basis of both Programmes, the responsibilities of the NAU with regard to the IAB are to
• designate an IAB for the preparation of the audit opinion on the yearly NA Management Declaration
• supervise the work of the IAB, by ensuring the minimum content specified in the guidelines is present in the report, and that the scope and depth of the audit work is sufficient
2.2. Responsibilities of the IAB
In accordance with Article 29 of the legal basis of Erasmus+ and Article 26 of the legal basis of the European Solidarity Corps, the IAB shall issue an audit opinion on the NA Management Declaration, issued annually by the NA by 15 February. The IAB Opinion shall be issued thereon by 15 March.
According to the EU Financial Regulation applicable for reporting on 2021, the audit opinion shall establish whether4
• the control systems put in place function properly and are cost-effective
• the underlying transactions are legal and regular
In order to take into account the contractual framework for NAs and their specific activities, the scope of the IAB Opinion also includes:
• the compliance of the NA's supervision arrangements with the requirements set in the Guide for NAs, including its effectiveness. This ensures that the implementation of NA activities respects the principles of sound financial management (principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness) while complying with the applicable rules set by the Commission (legality, regularity, risk assessment, governance structure etc.).
• checks of grant beneficiaries (primary checks)
3 Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+ : the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport
Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme
Art. 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing 'Erasmus+': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport.
4 Art 155.1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
• transnational cooperation activities/training and cooperation activities between NAs (TCA)
• training and evaluation cycle for EVS volunteers/European Solidarity Corps participants (TEC)
• DiscoverEU Learning Cycle for DiscoverEU participants
• networks (ECVET/National VET Teams, Eurodesk, SALTO)
• networking activities under the European Solidarity Corps (NET)
• EU contribution to management costs
• grant application evaluation process (procedure and implementation in place)
• separation between Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes' funds and spending to the relevant programme
The audit opinion shall also state whether the audit work puts in doubt the assertions made in the NA Management Declaration.
3. Designation of the IAB
3.1. Requirements for designation
The NAU designates the IAB. It is strongly recommended to designate the IAB covering the European Solidarity Corps in combination with Erasmus+. In accordance with the legal basis of Erasmus+5 and the European Solidarity Corps6, the NAU will verify that the IAB:
a) has the necessary professional competence to carry out public sector audits
b) ensures that its audits take account of internationally accepted audit standards
c) is not in a position of conflict of interest with regard to the legal entity of which the NA forms part. In particular, it shall be independent, in terms of its functions, of the legal entity of which the NA forms part
Particular attention needs to be drawn on situations where the IAB is a public service (e.g. an internal audit department of a Ministry representing the NAU). In these cases, the IAB should according to the
5 Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+ : the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport
Art. 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing 'Erasmus+': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport.
6 Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme
Article 19 of the Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the "European Solidarity Corps". xxxx://xxxx.xxxxxx.xx/xxx/xxx/0000/0000/xx
hierarchical organisation not fall under the hierarchical supervision of the NAU. The IAB must always be hierarchically independent from the NAU.
Without excluding other possibilities, there are three main sets of international audit standards which are generally accepted within the auditing profession in Europe:
1. The standards issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), which include a short identification of issues that may be relevant to the public sector. These have also been completed by Public Sector Studies.
2. The standards issued by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which are generally used by external public service auditors – European Court of Auditors and the National Supreme Audit Institutions. These have been completed with the European Implementing Guidelines for the INTOSAI Auditing Standards.
3. The standards issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors, used by internal auditors in the public and private sector.
These sets of standards comprise standards of ethics, standards related to work performance and standards related to reporting.
The IAB is allowed to delegate the entirety or a part of its audit work to another audit body only after prior approval by the Commission.
In case the NAU has doubts on whether the IAB meets the abovementioned requirements, it should always contact the Commission.
The form to designate the IAB is provided in Annex 1. It must be returned to the Commission immediately after the designation.
The NAU must ensure a timely designation of the IAB meaning that the IAB has to be formally designated before the audit work starts. The designation of the IAB should take place on time to ensure the audit opinion on the year 2021 for Erasmus+ and, if applicable, the European Solidarity Corps, is delivered by 15 March 2022.
3.2. Designation period
It is up to the NAU to decide on the designation period of the IAB, but at least this should cover the entire auditing period up to the submission of the report to the Commission. The NAU shall ensure that the IAB will have sufficient time for necessary audit work in view of the preparation of its audit opinion. It is strongly recommended to designate the IAB for at least two or, if possible, more years. The advantages of a multiannual designation period as compared with a shorter designation period are notably that:
• it enhances efficiency and cost-effectiveness of audit work of the IAB, building on audit experience each following year
• it facilitates the application of multiannual controls and audit strategies relating to avoid duplication of checks of NA systems and procedures
• as a consequence, it facilitates the IAB to respect the deadline (15 March) for submission of the IAB Opinion
3.3. Countries with more than one NA and/or NAU
A country can have more than one NA. Each NA can have a common or different NAU.
For these countries, it is recommended to keep the number of different IABs to a strict minimum: preferably one IAB. The advantages are that a single IAB can:
• compare across NAs and benefit from synergies
• provide advantages in terms of cost-benefit for both the NA and NAU; costs could be reduced, in so far as the IAB needs to check anyway the same procedures and the same kind of data for all NAs based on exactly the same rules applicable across both programmes
3.4. Relationship with IAB
The NAU shall determine how it organises its relationship with the IAB in view of the delivery of the audit opinion and keep all relevant documents on file: i.e. contract or any other type of agreement (e.g. service level agreement), Terms of Reference, correspondence, minutes of meetings etc.
If the IAB is a private body, the NAU shall conclude a contract containing all necessary details of the service to be provided. The contract shall include provisions for quality checks (timing and content) to be performed by the NAU in respect to all contractual provisions by the IAB.
For countries where the IAB is a public service body (e.g. state auditor or inspection service) an agreement should be concluded between the NAU and the IAB (e.g. service level agreement) permitting the NAU to perform the quality checks. The NAU shall ensure that the IAB is hierarchically independent from the NAU and the NA.
4. Audit scope and objectives for the IAB
The IAB shall, in accordance with the legal basis of Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, issue an audit opinion on the yearly Management Declaration of the NA.
The parts of the common NA Yearly Report consisting of Programme implementation, Programme management and Networks of the year under audit are not included in the audit scope of the IAB. However, the IAB should take note of it together with the following documents in the context of its preparatory work to obtain a good understanding of the audit environment:
- NAU October report submitted to the Commission by 31 October in the year under audit.
- Most recent Commission's evaluation conclusions letter and feedback letter
- Commission's supervisory visit report received in the year under audit (if applicable)
The IAB should use the latest version of open observations included in the latest letter sent by the Commission.
Attention: The NA Management Declaration includes a statement where the NA director confirms that "…the EU contribution to management costs was used and accounted for in compliance with the obligations laid down in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement". Considering that the
IAB Opinion is an opinion on the entire Management Declaration, it needs to cover also the EU contribution to management costs. As last year, the audit scope for the IAB also covers this small low- risk amount (approximately an additional 5% of managed funds to be covered) for the 2021 IAB Opinion. More details on the audit approach recommended are available in section 4.8.
The following paragraphs provide more details on the full audit scope for the IAB.
4.1. NA's financial reports related to funds for grant support for Xxxxxxxx and the European Solidarity Corps
The audit opinion establishes whether the control systems put in place function properly, are cost- effective and whether the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The legality aspect refers to the NA's contractual framework whereas the regularity aspect refers to the correct calculation of the amount.
The NA records its financial transactions in both the accounting system and the management tool provided by the Commission to the NA (EPlusLink or PMM7). On the basis of EPlusLink/PMM, the NA extracts financial tables of all financial transactions made between the Commission and the NA and also between the NA and its beneficiaries.
Taking into account the context of the NAs, the audit scope for the IAB consists of the yearly Financial Reports for all open Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements related to Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps.
The compulsory elements to be checked by the IAB in relation to financial reports are mentioned in paragraph 6.2.
At Commission level, the financial reports as per 31 December 2021 should normally lead to the closure of the 2018 or 2017 Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements.
4.2. NA's internal control system
The audit opinion establishes whether the internal control system put in place complies with its contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives reasonable guarantees for the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Commission's requirements on the NA's internal control system are described in the Guide for NAs implementing Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, of the relevant Call year. The Guide describes standards of internal control for NA operations (chapter 2), the systems and procedures related to the project lifecycle management (chapter 3) and the management of the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement (chapter 4). The Guide for NAs is part of the contractual framework of the NA.
The IAB needs to mention explicitly in its audit opinion whether the NA’s control systems are cost- effective. The audit approach to be applied is explained in section 6.1 (NA’s internal control system).
The standards of internal control in the Guide for NAs also include "management supervision" (section 2.5) relating to the annual NA work programme, risk management and the governance
7 Project Management Module (PMM) is an IT tool provided by the Commission to the NAs for the management of the project lifecycle of indirect management actions of both Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps (2021-2027).
structure. In this context, the IAB's scope also includes a check of the reliability of the related reporting in the NA Yearly Report.
The Guide for NAs requires the NAs to apply the principle of sound financial management across its procedures in relation to the management of the funds for grant support. Consequently this requirement falls within the scope for the IAB audit.
The attention of the IAB is drawn on the inherent risk that exists for projects where the beneficiaries applied procurement rules. The applicable public procurement rules may or may not be correctly applied. Therefore, in the case where costs are claimed on actual costs and there is a material amount of procured costs being claimed, the IAB's audit scope should include procedures applied by the NA to ensure that beneficiaries applied correctly the applicable public procurement rules during the phase of realisation of a project. If procurement is being applied where simplified costs are being claimed, no financial findings are normally appropriate, but a management recommendation can be made.
For more information on control systems, please see section 6.1.
4.3. Checks of grant beneficiaries
The NA performs checks of grant beneficiaries (primary checks) to obtain assurance on reality and eligibility of the activities supported with EU funds as well as on the legality and regularity of the underlying operations. The minimum requirements for these primary checks are set by the Commission in absolute numbers and percentages. The general principles as well as related systems and procedures are described in detail in section 3.11 as well as in Annex IV.11 (under development) of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
The IAB checks for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps:
(a) whether the NA reporting on primary checks is correct and reliable.
(b) whether the NA performs primary checks in accordance with the requirements set in the Guide for NAs (selection, timeliness, communication with beneficiaries (announcement, contradictory procedure), reporting). This also includes, as mentioned in paragraph 6.4 NA, procedures to ensure that beneficiaries apply correctly procurement rules for the realisation of projects, if applicable.
(c) the NA's assessment of the results of primary checks (error rates) (cause, remedial actions and if needed modification of the NA control strategy).
4.4. Training and cooperation activities between NAs (TCA)8
Under the Erasmus+ Programme 2021-2027, the NA is allocated under Key Action 3 funds for grant support for training and cooperation activities (TCA) between NAs in the different fields of education, training and youth and across sectors. Training and Cooperation Activities (TCA) aim to bring added
8 Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020: The NA could use a part of the Funds for grant support for Key Action 2 up to the maximum level indicated in the Delegation Agreements for Transnational Cooperation Activities (TCA) between NAs in the different fields of education, training and youth and across sectors.
value and increased quality in the overall Erasmus+ Programme implementation and so contribute to increasing the impact of the Programme at systemic level.
It is important to note that grant support to TCA and other networking activities is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules, whereas the funding of decentralised Erasmus+ projects is mainly based on unit costs. The TCA and other networking activities have to be approved by DG EAC in the NA WP. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this, and proportional to the amounts involved. In case some of the Erasmus+ TCA/ European Solidarity Corps NET activities would be covering both the Erasmus+ programme and the European Solidarity Corps, a clear audit trail for both funding sources should be ensured in order to provide coherent financial reporting per Programme and to avoid any double-funding.
More details on the applicable requirement are set out in Section 5.1 of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
4.5. Networking Activities under the European Solidarity Corps (NET)
The Networking Activities represent an instrument available to the NA to support the European Solidarity Corps in fulfilling its objectives and priorities. The NA may organise Transnational Networking Activities (TNA) between National Agencies and/or National Networking Activities and events (NNA) organised by the National Agency, The Funds allocated to each action of the European Solidarity Corps are specified in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement.
It is important to note that grant support to NET is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules. Networking Activities have to be approved by DG EAC in the NA WP. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this, and proportional to the amounts involved. In case some of the Erasmus+ TCA/ European Solidarity Corps NET activities would be covering both the Erasmus+ programme and the European Solidarity Corps, a clear audit trail for both funding sources should be ensured in order to provide coherent financial reporting per Programme and to avoid any double-funding.
More details on the applicable requirements are set out in Section 5.2 of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
4.6. Training and Evaluation Cycle for European Solidarity Corps participants and organisations (TEC)9
Specific training for participants and organisations in solidarity-related activities (Training and Evaluation Cycle (TEC)) aims to improve the level of preparedness of young people participating in cross-border solidarity-related activities. TEC also addresses organisations with an objective to provide training to newly awarded Quality Label organisations on the core features of the programme.
It is important to note that grant support to TEC is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules, whereas the funding of decentralised Erasmus+ projects is mainly based on unit costs. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this. More details on the applicable requirement are set out in sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
9 Eramus+ programme 2014-2020: Before the launch of the European Solidarity Corps in 2018, the NA could use a part of the Funds for grant support for Key Action 1 in the field of youth in order to carry out sessions of European Voluntary Service (EVS) Training and the Evaluation Cycle in accordance with the rules established in the Programme Guide and with the requirements set out in the Guide for NAs.
4.7. DiscoverEU Learning Cycle for DiscoverEU participants
DiscoverEU offers young people, who are 18 years old10 a chance to have a short-term individual or group experience travelling across Europe by rail or other modes of transport where necessary. The DiscoverEU Learning Cycle consists of quality and support activities that aim to ensure the best possible learning experience for the participants’ prior, during or after their mobility experience.
It is important to note that grant support to the DiscoverEU Learning Cycle is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules, whereas the funding of decentralised Erasmus+ projects is mainly based on unit costs. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this. More details on the applicable requirement are set out in sections 5.4 of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
4.8. Networks (ECVET/National VET Teams, Eurodesk, SALTO)
Apart from the funds for grant support and the contribution to management costs, the Commission also contributes to networks. The contribution to networks is based on eligible costs with specific eligibility rules (only costs which are identifiable and controllable and recorded in the accounts or tax documents of the NA are eligible, no overheads are allowed). The IAB should take this into account in its audit approach.
For all three networks described hereafter, the IAB will check to ensure that:
a) the related accounts and financial reports give a true and fair view,
b) there is no overlap/double funding of costs between the EU contribution to NA management costs and the EU support for the national ECVET/National VET Teams, Eurodesk and SALTO activities, including those related to ESC, where relevant (such as rental costs).
More details on the applicable requirement are set out in the Annex 2 of Terms of Reference for NA's WP (Guidelines for “Support and Network Functions”).
The Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement concluded between the Commission and the NA indicates the networks for which the NA is entrusted with tasks. The three networks with which NAs may be entrusted with tasks are:
ECVET/National VET Teams
The NA may provide administrative and financial support to a national team of ECVET experts/National VET Team. The purpose of the national teams of VET experts is to provide a pool of expertise to promote the application of EU VET tools and principles in EU funded projects supported by the Erasmus+ programme.
Eurodesk
The Eurodesk Network offers information services to young people and those who work with them on European opportunities, notably in the education, training and youth fields, as well as the involvement of young people in European activities. It contributes to the animation of the European Youth Portal.
10 Exceptions to the age rule are possible in order to take COVID-19 pandemic circumstances into consideration.
The Eurodesk Network offers enquiry answering services, funding information, events and publications.
SALTO11 (Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps)
Thematic Erasmus+ SALTO Resource Centres are structures that contribute to high-quality and inclusive implementation of the Programme. They should ensure a strategic and comprehensive approach in their respective areas. To ensure consistency in implementation across the networks, the SALTOs should provide guidance to and support to all National Agencies in their respective areas. Concretely, SALTOs will ensure a balanced offer of activities and resources for analysis, training, events, tools, publications and other support services.
The European Solidarity Corps Resource Centre provides assistance to the implementing bodies, participating organisations and stakeholders, to raise the quality and impact of the Corps’ actions and activities and to enhance the identification and documentation of competences acquired through solidarity-related activities. Existing services offered by the SALTO Resource Centres under Erasmus+ will also continue to assist the European Solidarity Corps in line with their thematic or regional areas of responsibility
4.9. EU contribution to management costs for Xxxxxxxx and the European Solidarity Corps
In order to comply with the underlying principle that assurance is needed on all funds entrusted to the National Agencies, a coverage of the EU contribution to management costs by the IAB opinion is necessary so that no expenditure of EU funds is considered fully outside the scope of the assurance process.
However, given the fact that amounts are low risk and based on the principle of a fixed amount, the Commission's objective is to limit as far as possible any additional burden on the auditor, but nevertheless ensure that these costs remain within the scope DG EAC's supervision strategy. In particular, this would not put into question the lump sum basis or autonomy of NAs in managing their costs appropriately to their specific needs. Therefore, a lightweight process is proposed, which can be adapted according to the auditor's best practice. The baseline assumption is that the EU contribution to management costs does not need to be subject to an in-depth audit but rather a limited analytical review where the auditor reviews the annual financial statements and audit opinion thereon to identify major changes or anomalies. In case such an audit opinion (based on national law) is not yet available for the year under audit, the IAB can use the opinion for the previous year. In particular, no sample testing of individual payments is proposed.
Two sources of assurance which do not involve additional sample checks are available under the International Standards on Auditing (ISA): the IAB can rely on work of another auditor (ISA 600 Using the work of another Auditor). If an audit opinion is already given by a national auditor the "single audit approach" can be used, so this opinion and any qualifications should be reported by the IAB. No analysis of underlying documents of the national auditor should normally be expected.
In addition the IAB can perform an analytical review of financial statements and if necessary receive explanations for major year-on-year changes or data which may appear inconsistent to the auditor
11 Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities
(ISA 520 Analytical Procedures). Again, no sample substantive testing, or checking of underlying documents, would be required.
The auditor would therefore review the financial statements and audit opinion to identify major changes or anomalies.
This review would confirm in general that the budget was spent for the purpose intended (i.e. on staff and procurement clearly related to the implementation of the programme). In addition, the review would also inform the Commission in the context of its supervision strategy what level of audit assurance the management costs are subject to by the National State Auditor/ or equivalent.
This assurance would normally also cover the respect of procurement rules by the NA. If not, the IAB should explicitly review and describe the NA's procedures on procurement, and raise a recommendation for this to be included in the work of the National State Auditor/ or equivalent.
Where no anomalies are identified and the statements have received a clean opinion from the national auditor in most recently available period (which will normally be prior to the period under audit), no further action is required in the part of the IAB.
4.10. Specific guidance for NAs for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic
In 2020/2021, the Commission provided NAs with specific guidelines12 based on which they were allowed to apply the principle of force majeure to respond to exceptional situations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic”. NAs have to use their judgement (case-by-case assessment) as to the situations in which the beneficiary is in the incapacity to fulfil its obligations under the grant agreement and consequently force majeure is applicable.
The IAB should test how NA treated the COVID-19 exceptions in 2021 applying the following approach:
a) review the NA’s monitoring system set up for dealing with such exceptions
b) test 3 to 5 affected closed projects
For this purpose, a few specific audit questions have been added into the checklist attached as Annex 7 (Indicative audit programme for systems review for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps).
The IAB should report on work done and conclusions reached in a separate chapter in the audit report for the audit opinion to be issued by 15 March 2022.
12 Link to NAconnECt: xxxxx://xxxxxxx.xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxx/xxxxx/xxxxx/xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx?xxxxxXxxxXxxxxxxXxxx&xxxxxxXXX%0XxX OVID-19]
4.11. Procurement and subcontracting
A limited number of detailed audit questions are included in section 15 (Procurement and subcontracting) of the checklist attached as Annex 7 (Indicative audit programme for systems review for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps).
The IAB should use this checklist for setting up the audit approach concerning the NA’s procurement procedures and report on conclusions reached in a separate chapter in the audit report for the audit opinion to be issued by 15 March 2022.
5. Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes (2021-2027)
In the framework of the “pillar assessment” process and the applicable ex-ante compliance assessment, the IAB is requested to update and check via the sample testing three specific internal control systems. Also, for each of them, a limited number of additional questions are included in the checklist attached as Annex 7 (Indicative audit programme for systems review for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps).
These elements were first included in the 2020 reporting period. The IAB is therefore only required to review and update their previous analysis based on any changes from 2021. However it is very useful for the Commission to have some summary information on the situation at each NA if this was not included in the previous reporting period.
The three internal control systems with reference to the checklist are the following:
a) Exclusion from access to funding (see new questions 5-11 of section 8 B, Grant Award Procedure)
b) Publication of information on recipients, applicable for grants and public procurement (see new section 10 Publication of information on recipients)
c) Protection of personal data (see new section 11 and Annex 9.2 on protection of data)
For purposes of traceability it is mandatory that this complementary assessment of the systems and procedures is distinguishable from the routine ex-post financial audit performed by the IAB. Therefore, the IAB should report on the work done and the conclusions reached in in a separate chapter in the audit report of the next audit opinion to be issued by 15 March 2022.
For data protection, the IAB may rely on expert opinion in compliance with generally accepted auditing standards. If the NA itself is processing personal data exclusively through Commission systems, the scope of the work is unlikely to require expert assistance.
6. Methodological approach
It is the responsibility of the NAU to ensure that the IAB covers the scope set out in chapter 4 and that the IAB Opinion is delivered on time and is based on audit activities which are of good quality.
This section provides more details on the audit scope together with some practical guidance on the methodological approach.
6.1. NA's internal control system
Control objective
NA's are requested to implement an adequate level of internal control. The audits in this area shall address the existence and functioning of the NA internal control system and procedures to ensure that:
- the set-up of NA systems and procedures is compliant with the requirements set in Guide for NAs
- NA control systems function properly, are cost-effective and are reliable and efficient
In this area the control objectives are typically those of a compliance audit, meaning checking the extent to which the rules and procedures of the NA comply with the regulatory framework for NAs.
The control objective of assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of procedures governing the reliability of financial data contributes to the assurance on the probity of the accounts (i.e. assurance that no material misstatements exist in the examined data).
As mentioned before in the audit scope, the IAB has to verify whether the set-up of the NA's management supervision system is compliant with the requirements set in the Guide for NAs (paragraph 2.5), in particular with regard to the NA's risk management and governance structure.
In addition, the principle of sound financial management (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) for the management of funds for grant support is also included in the scope of the IAB audit.
This implies that the IAB should report on any evidence which comes to its attention that the functioning of the NA internal control system does not sufficiently ensure the respect of the principle of sound financial management. The IAB is not requested to perform a specific audit on the respect of sound financial management13.
The IAB has to verify that adequate and timely follow-up of recommendations resulting from previous controls was carried out. The control objectives have to include testing that remedial actions have been correctly implemented.
IABs are recommended to use the indicative audit programme for systems review attached as Annex 7. More information is provided in section 6.6. (Indicative work programmes).
As mentioned in section 4.2 (NA’s internal control system), the IAB’s audit opinion must mention explicitly whether the NA’s control systems are cost-effective. Cost-effective controls are those, which are effective to fulfil the intended control objectives in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost. In other words, cost effective controls need to strike the right balance between effectiveness, efficiency and economy, ensuring a higher level of controls in riskier areas and less control in low-risk areas.
13 Further information and definitions of Sound Financial Management can be found in the Financial Regulation Title II : Budget and budgetary principles, Chap. 7: Principle of sound financial management and performance (articles 00-00-00-00) xxxx://xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxx_xx.xxx
Based on the Commission’s overview, the NA administrative costs are overall a reasonable percentage of the amount managed, and therefore a priori cost-effective, so the IAB is requested to report anything that comes to their attention which could improve cost-effectiveness of the individual NAs.
In order to conclude on the cost-effectiveness of the NA’s control systems’, IAB’s are recommended to use the list of questions listed in Annex 12 and to report on it in a separate paragraph in the audit report, to be referred to in the completeness checklist (see section 7.4). In case nothing came to the IAB’s attention to improve cost-effectiveness, the IAB should simply mention “Nothing identified”.
Spread over the year
The controls by the IAB can be carried out until the date of signature of the audit opinion (due by 15 March of the year N+1). However, the IAB should take into account that certain controls, in particular on systems and procedures (through systems' audits), can, and should ideally, be conducted earlier, whereas, logically, audits related to the NA's yearly financial reports can only be carried out after these reports have been finalised and submitted to the IAB.
The IAB is strongly encouraged to carry out the necessary systems' audits during the year to prepare for the audit opinion. By doing so, it will be easier for the IAB to produce its audit opinion by the deadline.
Multiannual approach
If a particular systems check does not result in observations, repeating the same test each year would not be a good use of resources. Ideally the IAB should develop an approach where:
a) new systems or procedures are always covered during the first year,
b) processes and procedures where anomalies were found in the previous year are always re-checked the year after.
In case the IAB has been designated for more than one year, the systems audit should have a multiannual approach, ensuring that all NA systems and procedures are covered with an in-depth check at least once every two to three years. The NAU should plan its multiannual system's audits preferably on a risk-based approach.
The objectives, the scope and the methodology of the audit shall be clearly indicated in the audit report in order to support the Opinion. If needed, any limitations shall be expressed and explained.
6.2. Financial Reports
The yearly Financial Reports for each Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement are extracted from the programme management tools provided by the Commission and attached to the NA Management Declaration.
For the networks, the Financial Reports are prepared on a manual basis.
The Financial Reports relating to funds for grant support for the Erasmus+ Programme and the European Solidarity Corps consist of the following information:
• List of bank accounts with for each bank account the ending balance and interest earned
• Financial statements on the use of funds for grant support (summary tables, detailed tables per field and activity, financial and contractual information) for each Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement
• Reports on networks, if applicable
• Reports on outstanding and waived recovery orders
• Reports on irregularities and suspicion of frauds
• If applicable, co-funding from other sources (national, European Social Funds, etc.)
• TCA/NET and TEC reports related to 2020 and 2021 Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements
The IAB will focus the control work on all financial transactions that occurred in the year for which it prepares its audit opinion.
This means that the population for transaction testing consists of ALL financial transactions (pre- financing and balance payments, as well as recovery orders) carried out by the NA in relation to grant beneficiaries during the year under audit. This population covers all Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements which are not yet closed.
With regard to the financial reports, the IAB's control has to cover the following elements:
1. Bank accounts (the situation as per 31/12/N-1 and 31/12/N and changes occurred during year N: ending balance, type of accounts, interest earned);
2. The Financial Reports for Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements that were not yet closed14 on the basis of the information provided by the Commission in Annex 2 of the final evaluation conclusions letter on the previous Audit opinion. These reports reflect cumulative figures since the start of each of the Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements. Hence, the coherence with figures reported in the previous year shall be checked. This implies that if the figures (and the underlying transactions) of the Yearly NA Report of year N-1 are adequately checked and if a clear cut-off between the transactions of calendar year N and those incurred and registered in the preceding calendar years can be made, the detailed checks of figures and underlying transactions can be limited to those incurred in calendar year N..
3. A reconciliation of totals included in all financial reports with accounting data.
4. The data on recovery orders (the situation as per 31/12/N-1 and 31/12/N and changes occurred in year N)
5. The data on cases of fraud (the situation as per 31/12/N-1 and 31/12/N and changes occurred in year N). The IAB also needs to check whether the NA has given an appropriate follow-up
14 "Closed" means that all final grant amounts have been determined and all payments in favour of grant beneficiaries have been made. Thus implicitly some ex-post checks might still be on-going and all refunds resulting from issued recovery orders might not yet have been cashed.
to outstanding fraud cases from the past (on which the NA should normally have reported on in the previous Yearly NA Reports)
An example of Terms of Reference for financial audits is attached in Annex 4.
6.3. Transaction testing
The size of the sample for transaction tests is planned by the auditors on the basis of their risk analysis. We recommend applying Monetary-Unit Sampling (MUS). This method, also known as probability- proportional-to-size sampling is widely accepted among auditors. If a MUS sampling results in projects of only one or two actions, some projects should be exchanged with projects of other actions (e.g. replace too many KA1 projects with some KA2 projects).
The sample of tested transactions (which should be a mixture of pre-financing and final payments) shall be representative for the population. Concretely, it should be proportionate in terms of number and value to payments made per Action Type (for example 'KA103') during the year under audit for all open Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements.
The number of tests shall be fixed in order to achieve reasonable assurance that major errors, fraud and/or systemic errors are detected.
The sample shall at least consist of 30 transactions under Erasmus+ as an absolute minimum applicable for all NAs. The IAB is requested to fill out the table attached as Annex 10 showing the list of project files tested.
In addition, the sample shall at least consist of 10 transactions under the European Solidarity Corps as an absolute minimum applicable for the NAs competent in the field of Youth.
If anomalies are detected the auditors shall analyse the source of errors and, if appropriate, increase the number of tests.
The control objectives typically used for financial audits are:
1. Transactions that should be recorded have been recorded (completeness)
2. Recorded transactions did take place (existence)
3. Transactions have been correctly valued (valuation)
4. Transactions have been recorded in the proper period (cut-off)
5. Transactions have been correctly classified (classification).
6. Transactions have been carried out in compliance with the regulatory framework (compliance) Examples:
1. Completeness: All the bank accounts used for the management of the EU funds have been properly disclosed.
2. Existence: the beneficiary final financial report is a basic document needed to establish the final grant amount. Without such a report no final payment can be proposed. However, as well as this report, the elements contained in the report have to be supported by evidence,
depending on the type of check15 undertaken by the NA: for example participants, activities, travels...
3. Valuation: the daily/weekly allowance used to establish the grant allocated to a project corresponds with that published in the call for proposals;
4. Check that a reimbursement made of an excess pre-financing payment has been made during the same reporting period;
5. Classification: check that the grant has been reported in the correct key action;
6. Compliance: take a sample of final payments and compare the time used for payments with the maximum allowed period for analysis/approval and payment/recovery.
For each tested transaction, the IAB shall check whether the grant award procedure from which the concerned project was selected was in accordance with the requirements set in the Guide for National Agencies (section 3.7 'Grant award procedure'). The key checks in this context are the following:
• Expert evaluators should be assigned on an automatized rather than manual basis and the NA should be able to demonstrate this. All actors involved also signed a statement on the prevention of conflicts of interest and disclosure of information in relation to the given selection round/for the 2021 report, as it is the start of the new programmes, the IABs are requested to put special emphasis on this part
• Eligibility check
• Quality assessments
• Validation of organisations
• Check of multiple submission and double funding
• Evaluation committee (composition, minutes…)
• Grant award decision (minimum specifications)
For the transaction testing, the IABs are recommended to use the following two checklists:
• Project life-cycle management assessment checklist (attached as Annex 8)
• Indicative audit programme for substantive testing (attached as Annex 9) More information is provided in section 6.6. ('Indicative work programmes').
15 Depending on the nature of each decentralised action, the NA is expected to undertake certain checks, such as final report checks, desk checks of supporting documents and on-the-spot checks (during action, after receipt of the final report and systems checks). The types of checks and technical guidelines for their undertaking are explained in the Guide for NAs and the technical instructions.
The list of tested project files should be provided by the IAB by using the template attached as Annex 10.
6.4. Checks of grant beneficiaries
The IAB shall also examine the reports on checks of grant beneficiaries. The audit activities shall include the following elements:
- Reconciling the BO reports on primary checks (EP034 reports) which are extracted from EPlusLink/PMM with the underlying registration system of the NA. The minimum number of checks to be complied with concerns only random checks. Risk based checks come on top of the minimum number of random checks. The total number of both random and risk based checks carried out by the NA will therefore determine the level of compliance.
- Checking of the NA procedure for these checks: staff involved (segregation of duties), sampling method, reporting system, effectiveness of primary checks (corrective measures taken based on errors found and weaknesses).
- Checking each year on a substantive sample basis whether these checks were carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Guide for NAs (quality of primary checks), and were properly recorded in Epluslink/PMM, with budgetary adjustments in line with the guidance. The results should be mentioned in the template provided in Annex 11 (List of primary checks tested).
- Checking the results of these checks, including resulting error rates
In the rare cases where beneficiaries have claimed actual costs based on procured services which are material at the level of the project, the procurement processes should be tested.
The size of the yearly test sample should be proportionate to the number of primary checks carried out by the NA during the year under audit. The sample size should also cover all types16 of primary checks carried out by the NA.
6.5. Documentation of audits
The process of the issuing of the audit opinion has to be structured and documented. The IAB has to keep a full audit trail of audit work carried out.
The Commission may proceed to a check of the documentation of the relationship between the NAU and the IAB (see paragraph 2.3), including IAB's working papers, as part of its supervisory visits.
As stipulated by the legal basis of the Erasmus+ Programme (Article 29) and the European Solidarity Corps (Article 26), the IAB shall give the NAU, the Commission and its representatives and the European Court of Auditors full access to all documents and reports in support of the audit opinion that it issues on the NA Management Declaration.
16There are 5 types of primary checks: final report check, desk check, on-the-spot check during project implementation, on-the-spot check after project implementation and system check.
6.6. Indicative work programmes
The following indicative work programmes for IABs are attached to these guidelines:
• Indicative audit programme for systems review (Annex 7)
• Checklist for Project life-cycle management assessment for both programmes (Annex 8)
• Indicative audit programme for substantive testing (Annex 9)
The purpose of sharing these Commissions' indicative work programmes with IABs is twofold: on one hand to ensure a more harmonised approach among IABs for fieldwork for procedures and transactions. On the other hand, to make the guidelines more concrete enhancing assurance that the regulatory framework is sufficiently covered by the IAB fieldwork.
The use of these audit programmes is strongly recommended. However, they should be considered as an indicative list of checks or guidance leaving the necessary room for the IAB's independency and own professional judgement. The IAB could decide to cover certain fields more (or, with justification, less) intensively than other indicated fields, based on a risk assessment.
7. Audit opinion
Based on the audit work performed, the IAB will be able to form an audit opinion on the following objectives of the audit:
(1) The compliance and effectiveness of the internal control and management control system of the NA.
(2) The legality and regularity of the expenditure declared to the funds (considering the results of the substantive testing).
(3) The completeness, accuracy and veracity of the financial reports (considering the results of the substantive testing, the reconciliation work and the analytical review of management costs).
The form to be used for the preparation of the audit opinion is provided in Annex 2.
The form to be used by the NA for the preparation of the NA Management Declaration is attached for information purposes in Annex 3.
The NA Management Declaration of the NA covers the current programme (Erasmus+) and, when relevant, the European Solidarity Corps. Consequently, the audit opinion shall cover all of these programmes.
The Commission provides support to IABs in any difficulties they may encounter in the process of establishing their audit opinion. The NAU is invited to ask the Commission for support and advice on methodological issues on behalf of the IAB whenever problems arise.
Should a major difficulty arise during the controls or as a result of such controls, the IAB should immediately inform the NAU and the Commission in writing on the nature and the possible consequences of the problem.
7.1. Materiality
When forming its audit opinion, the IAB may find weaknesses or errors of various natures. It will have to make judgements on the relative importance of these weaknesses or errors and their potential impact on the assurance provided by the NA. Therefore, the IAB will have to judge whether it should qualify its audit opinion, by informing the NAU and the Commission on weaknesses or errors found.
A weakness or error is considered material when it affects the conclusions drawn by the IAB. In this context, the IAB should take into account the tolerable error rate of 2 % as described in the example of Term of reference in Annex 4.
The IAB can use different parameters in order to determine if an error/ weakness has to be mentioned in the audit opinion. Some examples: significant weaknesses in the control system of the NA, weaknesses in the system of primary checks, recurring errors or risk of damage to the reputation of the Commission.
As regards to system weaknesses, the classification and rating framework described below shall be used for assessing the weakness found.
The retained weaknesses/errors identified by the IAB as well as the related recommendations must be listed in Annex 1 of the IAB Opinion. If the remedial actions have already been implemented by the NA on signature of the audit opinion, this must be mentioned in the same Annex. If this concerns a financial adjustment, the IAB shall explicitly state whether or not the NA has already made the necessary correction.
As regards follow-up of observations/recommendations, DG EAC wishes to underline that the following observations/recommendations are included in the scope for the IAB for follow-up:
• Observations resulting from the NA's own controls in the preparation of the yearly Management Declaration (see Annex 1 of the Management Declaration).
• Observations issued by the internal auditor of the NA, if not yet included in Annex 1 of the NA's Management Declaration.
7.2. Classification and rating framework for observations/recommendations
The IAB is requested to use the Commission's common classification and rating framework. (Annex 5). The NAU shall refer to the common framework when reporting their observations. This will facilitate the analysis and reporting on the results of controls and enhance communication between the Commission, the NAU and the NA.
The control areas applicable for NAs are classified in categories such as existence and legal personality, infrastructure and resources, internal control system and so on. Each of these categories contains a number of sub-categories to which each observation has to refer to. Under each category key elements of control have been identified.
The decision on the level of importance (rating) of a weakness or lack of compliance depends on its seriousness17 and impact18 which both can be high, medium or low.
17 "Seriousness" is related to the importance level of the detected shortcoming (for example, a checklist which
The following table shows the rating when integrating the results of the assessment on seriousness and impact.
impact | ||||
High | Medium | Low | ||
seriousness | High | Critical | Very important | Important |
Medium | Critical | Very important | Important | |
Low | Very important | Important | n/a | |
The higher the rating the more urgently the follow-up actions should be finalised and the closer the monitoring of the Commission on their implementation will be. Depending on the impact on assurance resulting from the weaknesses, the Commission may take precautionary measures in order to safeguard the interests of the European Union.
As shown in the grid above, three ratings are possible:
Critical: means that a key internal control (see Annex 5) is absent or is not at all compliant with EU requirements. Such fundamental weakness or deficiency in an internal control or in a series of internal controls directly leads to or represents a very high risk of either material error, or irregularity or fraud. It either results in an established loss of EU funds or represents a high risk of loss of EU funds with regard to the use of funds to be declared in future Yearly NA Reports. The weakness has a direct impact on the assurance to be provided to the Commission. The Commission expects immediate/urgent remedial actions to be taken and to be reported on by the NAU at short notice.
Very important: means that there is a significant weakness or deficiency in an internal control or in a series of internal controls that are not compliant with EU requirements and that results in a major risk of error, irregularity or fraud. The Commission expects that the remedial actions are implemented within a short timeframe (typically 3 months) and reported on by the NAU by the given deadline.
Important: means that there is a weakness or deficiency in an internal control or in a series of internal controls that are not fully compliant with EU requirements and that results in a limited risk of error, irregularity or fraud. The Commission expects that the remedial actions are implemented within a given timeframe and reported on by the NAU in the context of the yearly information on its monitoring and supervision activities.
is not signed by the person who performed the checks is a less "serious' weakness compared to improper segregation of duties in a payment procedure).
18 "Impact" is the (possible) consequence of the identified weakness or error (for example, the impact of an unsigned checklist is low without any financial impact whereas a shortcoming in the NA's payment procedure can have high financial impact).
7.3. Reporting on observations/recommendations
The IAB is requested to:
a) Follow-up existing open recommendations reported on in the most recent "evaluation conclusions letter" or feedback letter (or, if applicable, the Supervisory visit report received during the year under audit) of the Commission sent to the NAU on the basis of the previous audit opinion. The IAB examines the implementation of recommendations by the NA and reports on it in the IAB Opinion.
b) Verify all new qualifications/observations/recommendations/reservation disclosed by the NA in its NA Management Declaration and conclude on them (observations/recommendations are confirmed or not or need to be modified or specified or remedial actions are already implemented partly or completely). The observations disclosed by the NA in its NA Management Declaration shall include also all relevant findings issued by the NA's internal auditor.
c) Include new observations/recommendations resulting from its own audit into the list.
On the basis of these controls, the IAB shall fill in the template on observations/recommendations attached to the IAB Opinion. The concerned template serves to disclose information on all new observations/recommendations and on the follow-up made on all existing open recommendations and remedial action plans.
The Commission will close recommendations only on the basis of information received from the IAB, the NAU or on the basis of its own controls (like for example supervisory visits).
7.4. Audit Report
The IAB Opinion shall be accompanied by an audit report. The audit report shall include as a minimum the following information. For each element, the IAB needs to indicate the page and paragraph reference where it can be found in the audit report.
Completeness checklist for the IAB audit report | Page and paragraph reference by IAB of where this element can be found and confirmed by the NAU |
Audit objectives | |
Audit scope | |
Reference to the applied internationally accepted audit standards. | |
Results of reconciliation of aggregate amounts between financial reports and accounting system (differences). | |
List of all open Delegation Agreements that have been subject to detailed checks of aspects of legality and regularity of financial transactions and primary checks. | |
List of financial transactions per programme with project file numbers and grant amounts tested on aspects of legality |
and regularity. Sampling method should be described and results reported on an exception basis. Template provided in Annex 10 (List of financial transactions tested) is filled in and attached to the audit report. | |
List of primary checks per programme with project file numbers tested (specified per type of primary check). Sampling method should be described and results reported on an exception basis. Template provided in Annex 11 (List of primary checks tested) is filled in and attached to the audit report. | |
Audit approach and results for tests of expenditures concerning TCA and TEC under Erasmus+ as well as NET and TEC under the European Solidarity Corps (sample tested and compliance with requirements set in the Guide for NAs) | |
List of Networks that have been subject of detailed checks on aspects of legality and regularity. | |
Audit approach for tests of expenditures concerning Networks. | |
Follow-up of previous observations. Latest version of open observations sent by the Commission used. | |
Audit findings and recommendations including the importance level. | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on fraud cases report and waiver report as included in the Yearly NA Report. | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on NA's internal control system | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on the situation of the bank accounts. | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on the review of EU contribution to management costs. | |
Conclusions reached on the cost-effectiveness of the NA’s control systems. Describe identified areas for improvement or simply mention “Nothing identified” in the audit report (see section 6.1). | |
Conclusions reached on the review of the NA’s monitoring |
system for treating COVID-19 exceptions (see section 4.9). | |
Conclusion reached on procurement and subcontracting (see section 4.10) | |
Conclusions reached on the complementary assessment of systems and procedures regarding exclusion from access to funding, publication of information on beneficiaries and protection of personal data (see chapter 5). | |
Comments of the NA on audit findings and, in case of disagreement, final comments of the IAB. |
The IAB submits a draft version of the audit report to the NAU for completeness check. The NAU checks carefully whether the minimum content of the audit report is respected by cross-checking the reference for each element where it can be found with the IAB's audit report. For this purpose, the NAU should use this checklist for completeness. It is attached as separate document in Annex 6.
The IAB sends together with the audit opinion also the properly filled in completeness checklist to DG EAC.
The IAB is asked to submit to DG EAC, if applicable, a translated version of the original audit report(s) to the Audit opinion in one of the three working languages of the Commission (English, French or German) or, if possible, draft their report directly in one of these three languages. This will accelerate substantially the time needed for the assessment of the Yearly Management Declaration and the Audit opinion thereon and thus will allow the Commission to reduce the time needed to send out the evaluation conclusion letters.
8. Communications and timetable
The table below summarises the workflows of documents to be received by the Commission and the feedback letters (evaluation conclusions letters) to be sent by the Commission.
The Commission reports on its analysis in the following way:
a) the Commission sends an evaluation conclusion letter to the NA and NAU based on the assessment of the NA Management Declaration and the IAB Opinion. Feedback will cover:
• Analysis of programme management and implementation
• Analysis of financial reports
• Observations and recommendations regarding issues of non-compliance or non- effectiveness; reporting will be requested by the indicated deadline for reporting to the Commission. The following deadlines may occur:
o Observations rated "Critical": bilaterally agreed deadline for remedial actions
o Observations rated "Very important": October report of the NAU
o Observations rated "Important": next IAB Opinion
b) the Commission sends a feedback letter to the NAU on the basis of information provided by the NAU in its October report.
Summary of communication flows:
Who sends? | Which document? | To whom? | Deadline |
NA | Yearly NA Report (including NA Management Declaration) | NAU, IAB, Commission | 15 February |
IAB | IAB Opinion (including audit report and completeness checklist) | NAU, NA, Commission | 15 March |
Commission | Evaluation conclusion letter | NAU, NA | Within 90 calendar days upon receipt of the IAB Opinion |
NAU | October report19 | Commission (NA in copy) | 31 October |
Commission | Feedback letter | NAU | Before end of year |
The NA Management Declaration will be considered formally received by the Commission on receipt of the corresponding IAB Opinion.
The Commission shall have 90 calendar days upon receipt of the IAB Opinion to:
- complete the assessment of the NA Management Declaration and IAB Opinion
- request the NA/IAB for any additional information it deems necessary
- reject the NA Management Declaration and/or the IAB Opinion and ask for the submission of a new NA Management Declaration and/or IAB Opinion
- execute the related payment/recovery for Agreements that can be closed.
The IAB sends the signed and dated (scanned) version of the IAB Opinion (including all Annexes such as the audit report) by 15 March of each year to the functional mailbox:
19 The October report includes information on the follow-up made by the NA and NAU on open recommendations.
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1 Template for the designation of the IAB ANNEX 2 Template for the Audit opinion
ANNEX 3 Template for the NA Management Declaration ANNEX 4 Example of Terms of Reference for the IAB
ANNEX 5 Classification framework for observations/recommendations ANNEX 6 Completeness checklist for the IAB audit report
ANNEX 7 Indicative audit programme for systems review for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps
ANNEX 8.1 Checklist for Erasmus+ (2014-2020) and European Solidarity Corps (2018-2020) Project life-cycle management assessment
ANNEX 8.2 Checklist for Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps (2021-2027) Project life-cycle management assessment
ANNEX 9.1 Indicative audit programme for substantive testing for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps
ANNEX 9.2 Indicative audit programme on protection of personal data for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps
ANNEX 10 List of financial transactions tested for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps ANNEX 11 List of primary checks tested for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps ANNEX 12 Cost-effectiveness of NA’s control systems
ANNEX 13 Template for the audit report
ANNEX 1 Designation of the independent audit body
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EDUCATION, YOUTH, SPORT AND CULTURE |
DESIGNATION OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT BODY
The undersigned, [name, title, service], acting as the National Authority for the Erasmus+ Programme [and, if applicable] [the European Solidarity Corps], has designated on DD/MM/20XX the following organisation as Independent Audit Body for the National Agency(ies) [name(s) NA] in accordance with [the Regulation of the Erasmus+ Programme20] [and] [the Regulation of the European Solidarity Corps21]:
Designation of the Independent Audit Body | |
Name of the Independent Audit Body: | |
Name of contact person(s): | Mr/Mrs |
Address: | |
Tel: | |
Email(s) of contact person(s): | |
Designation period: | From DD/MM/20XX to DD/MM/20XX |
The undersigned declares that the designated Independent Audit Body:
(a) has the necessary professional competence to carry out public sector audits;
(b) ensures that its audits take account of internationally accepted audit standards;
(c) is not in a position of conflict of interest with regard to the legal entity of which the National Agency forms part. It particular, it is independent, in terms of its functions, of the legal entity of which the National Agency forms part.
Done at: Date: Signature:
20 Article 29 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+= the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport.
21 Article 23 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme
ANNEX 2 Template for the Audit opinion
OPINION
OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT BODY
ON THE 2021 MANAGEMENT DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY [NAME OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY], IMPLEMENTING THE ERASMUS+ [AND EUROPEAN SOLIDARITY CORPS] PROGRAMMES IN [COUNTRY] IN 2021
I, undersigned, [name, title], acting as the legally authorised representative of the Independent Audit Body [NAME OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT BODY] as designated by the National Authority22 on [DD/MM/YY], declare that in my opinion23:
A) with regard to the funds for grant support under the Erasmus+ Programme (including TCA24 and TEC25 activities):
(1) the accounts of the National Agency as reflected in the 2021 Yearly NA Report dated [DD/MM/YY] are the product of an accounting system which functions properly and are based on verifiable supporting documents.
(2) the internal control system put in place by the National Agency complies with its contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives reasonable guarantees for (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and investigation and follow-up of fraud and irregularities.
22 Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+ : the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport
Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme
23 In accordance with international audit standards, equivalent to IFAC standard ISA 700.
24 Transnational Cooperation Activities between National Agencies
25 Training and Evaluation Cycle for EVS volunteers (youth field)
(3) the underlying transactions are legal and regular. They comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions. The expenditure declared is eligible for EU funding and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.
B) [if applicable] with regard to the network(s) [ECVET/National VET Teams, Eurodesk, SALTO, TCA resource centre, European Solidarity Corps resource centre]:
(1) the accounts of the National Agency dated [DD/MM/YY] are the product of an accounting system which functions properly and are based on verifiable supporting documents.
(2) the internal control system put in place by the National Agency functions properly, complies with the contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives reasonable guarantees for (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and follow-up of fraud and irregularities.
(3) the underlying transactions are legal and regular. They comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions. The expenditure declared is eligible for EU funding and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.
C) [if applicable] with regard to the funds for grant support under the European Solidarity Corps Programme (including TEC26 activities):
(1) the accounts of the National Agency as reflected in the 2021 Yearly NA Report dated [DD/MM/YY] are the product of an accounting system which functions properly and are based on verifiable supporting documents.
(2) the internal control system put in place by the National Agency complies with its contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives reasonable guarantees for (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and investigation and follow-up of fraud and irregularities.
(3) the underlying transactions are legal and regular. They comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions. The expenditure declared is eligible for EU funding and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.
D) with regard to the EU contribution to management costs for Erasmus+ [(if applicable) and European Solidarity Corps]: based on a review of the available financial statements and audit opinion thereon [if applicable], the budget was spent for the purpose intended.
It is the responsibility of the NA to draw up the accounts and certify their completeness, accuracy and veracity and for ensuring a proper functioning of the NA's internal control system.
26 Training and Evaluation Cycle for European Solidarity Corps organisations and participants
It is the responsibility of the Independent Audit Body to express an opinion on whether the accounts of the National Agency are the product of an accounting system which functions properly, whether the internal control system put in place by the National Agency complies with the contractual provisions, is cost-effective and functions properly and whether the underlying transactions are legal and regular.
I believe that the audit evidence gathered is sufficient and appropriate to provide the basis for my opinion except those which are mentioned under 'Scope limitation'.
Scope limitation: [there were no limitations on the audit scope] or [the audit scope was limited by the following factors: …]
The audit work [does/does not] put in doubt the assertions made in the 2021 NA Management Declaration of the National Agency.
[if applicable] This audit opinion is subject to the observations/limitations/qualifications for which I propose the related recommendations listed in Annex 1.
This audit opinion has been drawn up in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards. The audit report is attached in Annex 2.
All documents involved in establishing the present audit opinion are available for scrutiny by the EU services, the National Authority, the European Court of Auditors and the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
Date:
Name:
Signature:
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: Observations and recommendations ANNEX 2: Audit report
Annex 1
List of observations/recommendations and action plan
The Independent Audit Body should include in these tables below:
A) the follow-up made by the National Agency of all open formal recommendations addressed to the NA following the 2020 IAB Opinion, any subsequent supervisory visit, any audit by the Court of Auditors and the most recent financial audit carried out on behalf of the Commission (non-financial audit findings).
Identification number of the observation | Title of the observation/ recommendation | Rating | Progress on implementation of recommendation | Conclusion of the IAB (remedial action fully or partially implemented) |
B) new important/very important/critical observations and recommendations resulting from the audit of the Independent Audit Body (including new observations/recommendation disclosed by the NA in Annex 1 of the 2021 NA Management Declaration):
Title of the observation (control area) | Description of the weakness, non- compliance issue, error | Rating27 | Reference to the legal basis (Guide for NAs, national law…) | Recommendation |
27 Ref: Guidelines for National Authorities in relation to the responsibilities of the Independent Audit Body, section 6.2
ANNEX 3 Template for Yearly Management Declaration
2021 NA MANAGEMENT DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY
[NAME OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY]
in [COUNTRY]
CONCERNING THE SYSTEM AND THE ACCOUNTS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
Erasmus+ [and European Solidarity Corps] programme(s)
I, the undersigned, [name, title], acting as the legally authorised representative of the National Agency28 [NAME OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY], designated for the implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme in the field(s) of [Education, Training and Youth OR Education and Training OR Youth] [and the European Solidarity Corps], confirm hereby that:
A) With regard to the accounts reflected in the 2021 Yearly NA Report related to the funds for grant support under the Erasmus+ Programme (including TCA29 and TEC30 activities), and drawn up for the expenditure incurred in the execution of the entrusted tasks:
1) the information is properly presented, complete and accurate;
2) the expenditure was used for its intended purpose, as defined in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement, and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management;
3) the internal control system put in place complies with the contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives the necessary guarantees concerning (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and investigation and follow-up of fraud and irregularities; the underlying transactions comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions.
B) [if applicable]With regard to the accounts related to the network(s) [National VET Team, Eurodesk, SALTO, TCA resource centre, European Solidarity Corps resource centre] and drawn up for the expenditure incurred in the execution of the entrusted tasks:
29 Transnational Cooperation Activities between National Agencies
30 Training and Evaluation Cycle for EVS volunteers (youth field)
1) the information is properly presented, complete and accurate,
2) the expenditure was used for its intended purpose, as defined in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement, and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management,
3) the internal control system put in place complies with the contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions; the underlying transactions comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions.
C) [if applicable] With regard to the accounts reflected in the 2021 Yearly NA Report related to the funds for grant support under the European Solidarity Corps (including TEC31 activities), and drawn up for the expenditure incurred in the execution of the entrusted tasks:
1) the information is properly presented, complete and accurate;
2) the expenditure was used for its intended purpose, as defined in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement, and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management;
3) the internal control system put in place complies with the contractual provisions, functions properly, is cost-effective and gives the necessary guarantees concerning (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and investigation and follow-up of fraud and irregularities; the underlying transactions comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions.
I have reasonable assurance that the resources assigned to the activities described in this NA Management Declaration have been used for their intended purpose and in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, and that the internal control procedures put in place comply with the contractual provisions, function properly and give the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.
This reasonable assurance is based on my own judgement and on the information at my disposal such as all management supervision activities and covers all elements of the management system. The supervisory activities were organised in such a way as to provide structured information to the National Agency management on a continuous basis.
I confirm that the EU contribution to management costs was used in compliance with the obligations laid down in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement and that
[NAME OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY]:
31 Training and Evaluation Cycle for European Solidarity Corps organisations and participants
- is subject to an independent external audit, performed in accordance with internationally accepted auditing standards by a functionally independent audit service;
- ensures the ex post publication of information on recipients in accordance with Article
I.1.3 of the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement;
- ensures protection of personal data in accordance with Article II.7 of the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement.
I confirm that the EU financial contribution in support of Erasmus+ [and European Solidarity Corps] management tasks of the National Agency ("Contribution to management costs") for the calendar year 2021 has been used for its intended purpose.
I confirm that I am not aware of any significant problems that have not been reported in this NA Management Declaration and which could harm the interests of the EU.
The summary of final audit reports and of controls is included in Annex 2. These controls also include checks on beneficiaries (primary checks) executed on the funds for grant support.
The documents related to the process of establishing the present NA Management Declaration are available for scrutiny by the EU services, the National Authority, the European Court of Auditors and the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
This Management Declaration [is not /is] subject to [the following] reservations: [if applicable, describe the reservations: ]
This Management Declaration is subject to the observations listed in Annex 1 for which I propose the remedial actions described in the attached action plan.
Date:
Name:
Signature:
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: Analysis of nature and extent of errors and weaknesses identified in systems, as well as corrective action taken or planned (including follow-up of existing observations included in the most recent "evaluation conclusions letter" of the Commission)
ANNEX 2: Summary of final audit reports and of controls carried out
Annex 1
List of observations and action plan
The National Agency should include in these tables below:
A) the follow-up made by the NA of all open formal observations addressed to the NA following the assessment of the 2020 Yearly NA report, any subsequent supervisory visit, any audit by the Court of Auditors and the most recent financial audit carried out on behalf of the Commission (in relation to non-financial audit findings).
Identification number of the observation | Title of the observation | Rating | Progress on implementation of related recommendation | Conclusion |
B) new important/very important/critical observations resulting from its own controls in the preparation of the 2021 NA Management Declaration:
Description of the observations (weakness / items of non- compliance / error detected) | Rating | Remedial action planned | Proposed deadline for implementation |
Annex 2
Summary of final audit reports and of controls carried out
The table below should include a summary of supervisory activities (audits and controls) carried out by NA staff or on behalf of the NA32 for the implementation of the requirements on management supervision as described in paragraph 2.5 ('Management supervision') of the Guide for NAs and serving as a solid basis for the preparation of the Yearly Management Declaration.
Controls carried out by the NA, including internal and external audit activities | Analysis of nature and extent of errors and weaknesses identified in systems | Corrective action taken or planned |
1. [final audit report or control activity] [examples: audit reports of the NA's internal auditor, specific controls carried out by NA staff in high risk areas, risk-based primary checks, audit of the annual accounts by the statutory auditor of the NA…] | ||
2. [final audit report or control activity] | ||
3. … |
32 Audits carried out by the Independent Audit Body in view of the Independent Audit Opinion are excluded.
ANNEX 4 Example of Terms of Reference for the Independent Audit Body (IAB)
Audit objective
The audit objective with regard to the funds for grant support under the Erasmus+ Programme (including TCA activities and TEC activities), networks (to be described) as well as the European Solidarity Corps (including NET and TEC activities) is specified as follows:
(1) The accounts of the NA as reflected in the Yearly NA Report and attached in the NA Management Declaration are the product of an accounting system which functions properly and are based on verifiable supporting documents. The Financial Reports are the product of a reliable accounting system and are based on verifiable supporting documents.
(2) The control systems put in place by the NA comply with the contractual provisions, are cost-effective and give the necessary guarantees for (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and follow-up of fraud and irregularities.
(3) The underlying transactions are legal and regular. They comply with the applicable EU rules and contractual provisions. The expenditure declared is eligible for EU funding and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.
The Audit opinion shall also state whether the audit work puts in doubt or not the assertions made in the Management Declaration.
Audit scope
The audit scope for the preparation of the audit opinion includes the following elements: (1) NA's financial reports related to the funds for grant support for E+/ESC
Concretely, the scope for the IAB consists of:
• Yearly NA Financial Reports for funds of grant support under the Erasmus+ Programme
• Yearly NA Financial Reports for funds of grant support under the European Solidarity Corps
The auditors will use the Yearly NA Financial Reports as the basis for their work. These reports make it possible to get agglomerated figures for the transactions of the year as well as a situation at the beginning and at the end of the year.
The Yearly NA Financial Reports contain agglomerate data. NA's must have the detailed transactions that tie in with the agglomerate data.
The audit opinion shall establish whether
• the control systems put in place function properly and are cost-effective
• the underlying transactions are legal and regular
(2) NA's internal control system
The audit opinion establishes whether the internal control system put in place is cost-effective and gives the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.
The IAB verifies whether the NA's internal control system as described in the Guide for NAs implementing the Erasmus+ Programme and European Solidarity Corps (a) is compliant with the Commission's requirements and (b) functions properly (effectiveness).
The Guide for NAs describes the standards of internal control for NA operations (chapter 2 of the Guide for NAs) as well as systems and procedures related to the project lifecycle management (chapter 3 of the Guide for NAs) and the management of the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement (chapter 4 of the Guide for NAs).
The standards of internal control of the Guide for NAs include also "management supervision" (section 2.5 of the Guide for NAs) in relation to the yearly NA work programme, risk management and the governance structure. The IAB's scope includes also (a) a compliance check of the relevant section II.4 (quality of the NA management system) of the NA work programme with NA practice and (b) reliability of the related reporting in the yearly NA Activity Report.
The Guide for NAs requires the NAs to apply the principle of sound financial management across its procedures related to the management of the funds for grant support. Consequently this requirement also falls within the scope of the audit for the IAB.
(3) Checks of grant beneficiaries
The NA performs checks of grant beneficiaries (so-called primary checks) to obtain assurance on reality and eligibility of the activities supported with EU funds as well as on the legality and regularity of the underlying operations. The minima for these primary checks are set by the Commission in absolute numbers and percentages. The general principles as well as related systems and procedures are described in detail in section 3.11 as well as Xxxxx XX.11 (under development) of the Guide for NAs.
The IAB checks:
(a) whether the NA reporting on primary checks in EPlusLink/PMM is correct and reliable
(b) whether the NA performs primary checks in accordance with the requirements set in the Guide for NAs (selection, conduct, reporting)
(c) the NA's assessment of the results of primary checks (error rates) (cause, remedial actions and if needed modification of the NA control strategy).
[if applicable] (4) Training and cooperation activities between NAs (TCA) and other networking activities under Erasmus+
Under the Erasmus+ Programme 2021-2027, the NA is allocated under Key Action 3 in the Contribution Agreement funds for grant support for training and cooperation activities (TCA) between NAs in the different fields of education, training and youth and across sectors. Training and Cooperation Activities (TCA) aim to bring added value and increased quality in the overall Erasmus+ Programme implementation and so contribute to increasing the impact of the Programme at systemic level.
It is important to note that grant support to TCA and other networking activities is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules, whereas the funding of decentralised Erasmus+ projects is mainly based on unit costs. The TCA and other networking activities have to be approved by DG EAC in the NA WP. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this, and proportional to the amounts involved. More details on the applicable requirement are set out in Section 5.1 of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
[if applicable] (5) Training and Evaluation Cycle for European Solidarity Corps participants (TEC)
Specific training for participants and organisations in solidarity-related activities (Training and Evaluation Cycle (TEC)) aims to improve the level of preparedness of young people participating in cross-border solidarity-related activities. TEC also addresses organisations with an objective to provide training to newly awarded Quality Label organisations on the core features of the programme.
It is important to note that grant support to TEC is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules, whereas the funding of decentralised Erasmus+ projects is mainly based on unit costs. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this. More details on the applicable requirement are set out in section 5.2 of the 2021 Guide for NAs..
[if applicable] (5 a) DiscoverEU Learning Cycle for DiscoverEU participants
DiscoverEU offers young people, who are 18 years old33 a chance to have a short-term individual or group experience travelling across Europe by rail or other modes of transport where necessary. The DiscoverEU Learning Cycle consists of quality and support activities that aim to ensure the best possible learning experience for the participants’ prior, during or after their mobility experience.
It is important to note that grant support to the DiscoverEU Learning Cycle is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules, whereas the funding of decentralised Erasmus+ projects is mainly based on unit costs. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this. More details on the applicable requirement are set out in sections 5.4 of the 2021 Guide for NAs.
[if applicable] (6) Networks [ECVET/National VET Team, Eurodesk, SALTO]
Apart from the Funds for grant support and the contribution to management costs, the Commission also contributes to networks. The contribution to networks is based on eligible costs with specific eligibility rules (only costs which are identifiable and controllable and recorded in the accounts or tax documents of the NA are eligible). The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this specificity.
The IAB's audit shall ensure that (a) the related accounts and financial reports give a true and fair view and
(b) there is no overlap/double funding of costs between the EU contribution to NA management costs and the EU support for the national ECVET/National VET Team, Eurodesk and SALTO activities, including tasks related to the European Solidarity Corps, where relevant.
[if applicable] (7) Networking Activities under the European Solidarity Corps
33 Exceptions to the age rule are possible in order to take COVID-19 pandemic circumstances into consideration.
The NA may organise Transnational Networking Activities (TNA) between National Agencies and/or National Networking Activities and events (NNA) organised by the National Agency, The Funds allocated to each action of the European Solidarity Corps are specified in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement. Grant support to NET is based on real costs with specific eligibility rules. Networking Activities have to be approved by DG EAC in the NA WP. The audit approach of the IAB shall be adapted to this, and proportional to the amounts involved.
(8) EU contribution to management costs
Audit approach: analytical review. Only if necessary, detailed testing of individual transactions.
Preparatory work
The audit approach should include the following steps.
a) Analysis of the legal basis for the Erasmus+ Programme and the European Solidarity Corps , the Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements (Erasmus+ Programme and European Solidarity Corps) and the Guide for NAs.
b) Check whether the internal control system put in place by the NA complies with the contractual provisions, is cost effective and gives the necessary guarantees for (a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, (b) safeguarding of assets and information and (c) prevention, detection, correction and follow-up of fraud and irregularities.
c) Check probity and accuracy of the financial information reported in the Yearly NA report by carrying out detailed testing on a sampled basis.
d) Testing process: examine the legality and regularity of each transaction selected for inclusion in the sample. The sample has to focus on 2021 NA transactions related to all open Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements (Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps) listed by the Commission in Annex 2 of the evaluation conclusions letter on the 2018 Management Declaration. If the auditors can rely on the results of the audit work relating to 2020 Yearly NA Report and before and if the 'closing' figures 2020 match with the 'opening' figures 2021, they can limit their examination at a sample exclusively drawn from 2021 NA transactions.
As regards the testing process, the following elements should be considered:
a) Sampling method: we recommend applying Monetary-Unit Sampling (MUS). This method, also known as probability-proportional-to-size sampling is widely accepted among auditors.
b) Sample size: the sample size shall be statistically representative for the population (see hereunder). In such a case it is recommended that the calculation of the sample size is based on the following parameters:
A generally accepted 95 % confidence level for drawing a conclusion on the whole population.
A tolerable error rate (TRE). The tolerable error rate is the maximum monetary misstatement that can exist in the selected transaction amount. The tolerable error rate is based on a risk assessment, for example the assessment of the internal control system of the NA. It is fixed at 2 %.
In any case the sample size should consist of at least 30 transactions for Erasmus+ and, if applicable, 10 transactions for the European Solidarity Corp.
c) All individual errors detected need to be disclosed to allow for possible corrections.
d) The total error related to the population needs to be compared with the materiality threshold in order to be able to give a modified or unmodified opinion.
e) If the sample taken is statistically representative, the error rate found can be extrapolated to the population. The audit report has to mention the sample size, its coverage in value and number of transactions as well as the size of the population.
Fieldwork (in relation to financial reports)
The auditors will tie in the lists with amounts of grants awarded, payments and recoveries by action type and individual project with the financial tables; they will check the lists on clerical accuracy. They will report all anomalies detected.
The auditors will tie in the individual transactions (grants xxxxxxx00, pre-financing payments to grant beneficiaries, balance payments to grant beneficiaries, payments by and refunds to the Commission, recovery orders issued, perceived or waived, interest perceived, …) with the NAs accounting system. They will make a reconciliation between the NAs accounting system and the Management Information Systems used (can be systems proper to the NA or EC systems such as EPlusLink/PMM) or check the reconciliation made by the NA. The auditors will report all anomalies detected and give an overall conclusion on the matching of the transactions, assets and liabilities relating to the activities carried out and how they were entered into the accounting.
The auditors will vouch the underlying documents (grant applications, reports, bank statements, documents such as invoices, airline tickets, presence lists, etc.) relating to the individual transactions (the bank statements with the payments received from the Commission, the grant award decision, the payment order, the actual bank statement relating to the payment, the contractual reports, the calculation sheet for determining the final grant amount, the recovery orders, the bank statements relating to recoveries, the waiver of a recovery order, legal procedures for claiming back recoveries or dealing with alleged fraud, the deliverables such as brochures, minutes, reports, publications, etc.).
At award stage, the auditors will check that the minimum requirements for selecting the project and determine the grant amounts have been met. They will also check whether the grant agreements (contracts) in national language used by the NA correspond with the standard texts for the grant agreements provided by the Commission in the Annex to the Guide for NAs. Where required they will check that the data have been entered into EC databases such as EPlusLink/PMM.
On the basis of final reports received the auditors will check that the final grant amount is correctly determined taking into account the eligibility of costs claimed, the daily rates and unit costs used.
The auditors will analyse on what basis the NA has selected the projects for the desk reviews and for the on- the-spot checks; whether the staff carrying out these controls are competent to do so and are not involved in any conflict of interest. The auditors will examine if the selection criteria take into account recurring beneficiaries.
The auditors will perform at least the following checks:
34 In a strict sense it is not expected that grants awarded are registered in the accounting system; therefore the auditors should check how the NA controls the grants awarded by comparison with the available budget and the grant amounts awarded.
• Check that the desk checks (primary checks) or on-the-spot checks (in situ audits) have been properly documented and have led to a correct conclusion. They will check the relevance of the checks performed during the on-the-spot checks.
• Check whether the grants have received other funding than that from the European Commission and determine if any grants result in a profit for the beneficiary.
• Check that the following items (reporting of exceptions) are properly included in Yearly NA Report:
- financial corrections resulting from the mentioned controls
- waiver of recovery orders
- outstanding recovery orders
- perceived refunds from recovery orders, in particular from earlier closed grant agreements with beneficiaries
- outstanding fraud cases.
• Check the follow-up of the fraud cases resulting from earlier decentralised action grant agreements and trace the transactions with supporting documents.
• Check whether the NA has a proper system of registering and following up recoveries (refunds to be made as a result of checks made or if the pre-financing payments are higher than the final grant amount).
• Check whether outstanding recovery orders were properly disclosed to the Commission.
• Reconcile the report on recovery orders with internal reporting and follow-up tools of the NA.
• Trace the transactions with the underlying documents (refunds, waivers, issuing new recovery orders).
• Check that waived recovery orders over € 200 have been formally authorised by the Commission.
• Check the existence of all the bank accounts. Check that the nature of these bank accounts corresponds to what has been disclosed in the Yearly NA report. Check that they are denominated in Euro (only transit accounts may be denominated in national currency).
• Check that the bank accounts are owned by the NA.
• Check that all bank accounts are interest bearing and that there are no implicit risks of losing their subsistence.
• Check that all funds related to the decentralised actions grants are managed through the disclosed bank accounts.
• Check that no other funds than those related to the decentralised actions grants are managed through the disclosed bank accounts.
• Reconcile the opening and closing balances with the bank statements.
• Check clerical accuracy of the financial reports included in the Yearly NA Report.
• Reconcile transfers from and to other bank accounts held by the NA.
• Trace interest earned or accrued; check that tax withheld on the bank accounts is properly disclosed by the NA. Compare with declared interest in reporting on interest earned.
• Trace - on a sample basis - transactions (including payments received from and made to the Commission) on the bank accounts with the underlying documents and with the accounts. Check the opening and closing balances on the bank statements with the accounts.
• Check that bank fees and charges are funded from the operating budget of the NA.
• Check that the total amounts of transfers made from the disclosed bank accounts are equal to other disclosed bank accounts. Reconcile any differences.
• List all anomalies found, discuss them with the NA management and file the evidence supporting their conclusion. The auditors must not automatically extrapolate the results of the errors detected.
Adversary procedure: At the end of the fieldwork the auditors will organise a meeting with the NA management and give a list with all findings (description of the finding, basis for the finding, financial impact, recurring or one-time finding) they intend to include in their report. The NA will be invited to make its comments within a reasonable period of time (not more than one week after that meeting).
ANNEX 5 Classification framework for observations
Control Area | Legal basis (see footnotes below) |
National Agency | |
Legal set up | |
Existence and legal personality | Reg. 2021/817 – Art. 27.1(a) |
Financial guarantee | Reg. 2021/817 – Art. 27.1(d) |
Duration | Reg. 2021/817 – Art. 27.7 |
Ethical and organisational values | GfNA35 - Section 2.1 |
NA Staff | |
Number of staff and competences | Reg. 2021/817– Art. 27.2(b) GfNA - Section 2.2.1(1), (2), (3) |
Delegation of budget implementation tasks | Reg. 2021/817 - Article 28.7 GfNA - Section 2.2.1(4), (5) |
Recruitment | GfNA - Section 2.2.2 |
Tasks and responsibilities | GfNA - Section 2.2.3 |
Training | GfNA - Section 2.2.4 |
Operational structure | |
Internal organisation | GfNA - Section 2.3.1 (1), (2), (3) |
Irregularities and fraud prevention - four eyes principle | GfNA - Section 2.3.1(4) |
Segregation of duties | GfNA - Section 2.3.2 |
Internal NA procedures | GfNA - Section 2.4.1 |
Coordinated Programme management at national level | GfNA - Section 2.4.2, 3.3.1(4), 3.6.6(3), 3.9.1(3), 3.10(5), 3.11.1(2), 4.7.2 |
Management supervision | |
System | GfNA - Section 2.5.1 |
Planning and risk assessment | GfNA - Section 2.5.2 |
Governance | GfNA - Section 2.5.3 |
Authorisation, recording and correction of exceptions | GfNA - Section 2.5.4 |
35 2021 Guide for NAs, version of 07 May 2021.
Accounting and financial reporting | GfNA - Section 2.6 |
Internal audit | GfNA - Section 2.7 |
Document management | GfNA - Section 2.8 |
Business continuity | GfNA - Section 2.9 |
Infrastructure | |
Premises | GfNA - Section 2.10(1) |
IT and data security | GfNA - Section 2.10(2) |
Call for proposals | GfNA - Section 3.2 |
Strategic framework for the implementation of Erasmus+ | GfNA - Section 3.3 |
Communication, information, dissemination and exploitation of results | GfNA - Section 3.4 |
Counselling of potential applicants | GfNA - Section 3.5 |
Reception and registration of grant applications | GfNA - Section 3.6 |
Grant award procedures | |
Transparency, impartiality | GfNA - Section 3.7.1(1), (3) |
Information and training of experts | GfNA - Section 3.7.1(4) |
Documentation | GfNA - Section 3.7.1(2) |
Conflict of interest prevention | GfNA - Section 3.7.2 |
Eligibility check | GfNA - Section 3.7.4 |
Quality assessment procedure | GfNA - Section 3.7.7 |
Certification of organisations | GfNA - Section 3.7.8 |
Verification of double funding | GfNA - Section 3.7.5 |
Evaluation committee | GfNA - Section 3.7.9 |
Grant award decision | GfNA - Section 3.7.10 |
Notification of grant award results | GfNA - Section 3.7.11 |
Ex-post publication of grant award results | GfNA - Section 3.7.12 |
Grant agreements | |
Forms of grants | GfNA - Section 3.8.1 |
Financial capacity check | GfNA - Section 3.7.6 |
Issuing of grant agreements | GfNA - Section 3.8.2 |
Amendments of grant agreements | GfNA - Section 3.8.3 |
Reserve lists | GfNA - Section 3.9 |
Grant payments | GfNA - Section 3.10 |
Checks of grant beneficiaries | GfNA - Section 3.11 (including instructions for NAs in Annex IV.11 (under development) of the Guide for NAs) |
Recovery of EU funds from beneficiaries | GfNA - Section 3.12 |
Support and monitoring to beneficiaries | GfNA - Section 3.13 |
Dealing with irregularities and frauds | GfNA - Section 3.14 |
Information on means of redress | GfNA - Section 3.15 |
Processing of personal data by the NA | GfNA - Section 3.17 |
Use of EU funds | GfNA - Section 4.1 |
National co-funding to indirect management | GfNA - Section 4.2 |
Financial management | |
Accounting | GfNA - Section 4.3.1 |
Bank accounts and treasury management | GfNA - Section 4.3.2 |
Procurement | GfNA - Section 4.4 |
IT systems | GfNA - Section 4.5 |
Request for amendments to the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement | GfNA - Section 4.6 |
National Agency reporting | GfNA - Section 4.7 |
NA support to quality and impact | |
Transnational Cooperation Activities between NAs | GfNA - Section 5.1 |
Networking Activities under the ESC (NET) | GfNA - Section 5.1 |
Training and Evaluation Cycle (TEC) for E+ volunteers and ESC participants | GfNA - Section 5.2 |
Training and Evaluation Cycle (TEC) for organisations | GfNA - Section 5.3 |
Discover EU Learning Cycle for Discover EU participants | GfNA - Section 5.4 |
ANNEX 6 Completeness checklist for the IAB audit report
Completeness checklist for the IAB audit report | Page and paragraph reference by IAB of where this element can be found and confirmed by the NAU |
Audit objectives | |
Audit scope | |
Reference to the applied internationally accepted audit standards. | |
Results of reconciliation of aggregate amounts between financial reports and accounting system (differences) | |
List of all open Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements that have been subject to detailed checks of aspects of legality and regularity of financial transactions and primary checks. | |
List of financial transactions per programme with project file numbers and grant amounts tested on aspects of legality and regularity. Sampling method should be described and results reported on an exception basis. Template provided in Annex 10 (List of financial transactions tested) is filled in and attached to the audit report. | |
List of primary checks per programme with project file numbers tested (specified per type of primary check). Sampling method should be described and results reported on an exception basis. Template provided in Annex 11 (List of primary checks tested) is filled in and attached to the audit report. | |
Audit approach and results for tests of expenditures concerning TCA and TEC under Erasmus+ and NET under the European Solidarity Corps (sample tested and compliance with requirements set in the Guide for NAs). | |
List of Networks that have been subject of detailed checks on aspects of legality and regularity. | |
Audit approach for tests of expenditures concerning Networks. | |
Follow-up of previous observations. Latest version of open observations sent by the Commission used. |
Audit findings and recommendations including the importance level | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on fraud cases report and waiver report as included in the Yearly NA Report. | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on NA's internal control system | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on the situation of the bank accounts. | |
Audit approach and conclusions reached on the review of EU contribution to management costs. | |
Conclusions reached on the cost-effectiveness of the NA’s control systems. Describe identified areas for improvement or simply mention “Nothing identified” in the audit report (see section 6.1). | |
Conclusions reached on the review of the NA’s monitoring system for treating COVID-19 exceptions (see section 4.9). | |
Conclusion reached on procurement and subcontracting (see section 4.10) | |
Conclusions reached on the complementary assessment of systems and procedures regarding exclusion from access to funding, publication of information on beneficiaries and protection of personal data (see chapter 5). | |
Comments of the NA on audit findings and, in case of disagreement, final comments of the IAB. |
ANNEX 7 Indicative audit programme (IAP) for systems review for Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps
AREAS COVERED | LEGAL FRAMEWORK (reference to appropriate section from Guide for NAs) | Ref. to Pillar Assessment requirements (components) | |||
- Legal setup and operational structure of the National AGENCY | 2.1; 2.2,2.3 | Pillar 1 Control Environment / Control Activities | |||
2.4.1, 2.4.2 | Pillar 1 Control Activities / Monitoring; partly Pillar 4 Grants; partly Pillar 5 Procurement | ||||
- Management supervision (Risk assessment, governance, exceptions) | 2.5 | Pillar 1 Risk Assessment / Control Activities / Information & Communication | |||
- Internal audit service: meeting with the services/auditors in charge of | 2.7 | Pillar 1 Monitoring | |||
2.8 | Pillar 4 Documentation and filing of the grants process | ||||
2.9 | Pillar 1 Control Activities | ||||
2.10 | Pillar 1 Control Activities | ||||
- Project lifecycle management from the call until payment after final report (check of project files – A RANDOM SAMPLE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SIZE OF THE NA, COVERING ALL KEY ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED) – see also Annex 8 Erasmus+ and ESC Project life- cycle management assessment - Checklist | Pillar 4 Grants | ||||
3.2; 3.6 | |||||
3.7 | |||||
3.8 | |||||
3.10 | |||||
3.12 | |||||
1. Publication of information on recipients (applicable for grants and public procurement) | |||||
3.14 | Pillar 1 Control Activities | ||||
- Protection of personal data | 3.17 | ||||
- Accounting system and Commission's and (if applicable) local management | 4.3.1 | Pillar 2 Accounting system and Policies / Budgeting | |||
- Treasury management (NA bank accounts, monthly reconciliations…) | 4.3.2 | Pillar 1 Control activities | |||
4.4 | Pillar 5 Procurement | ||||
- Reporting procedure for the yearly management declaration (AUDIT TRAIL) | 4.7 | Pillar 1 Information & Communication | |||
- Monitoring system for treating COVID-19 exceptions | 4.9 | ||||
Does the NA’s assessment procedure include a formal authorisatio by NA management to decide that force majeure is applicable for a project? | |||||
Page 51 of 98
No | Item to be checked | Task performed | Documents requested/ obtained | Conclusion / comment / observation | Manage ment finding to issue |
3. LEGAL SETUP AND OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY | |||||
3. | If not clarified during the preparatory phase, understand the legal setup of NA and accordance to the new Erasmus and, if applicable European Solidarity Corps programmes. | ||||
4. | Obtain operational chart, clarify the number of staff and functions of jobholders | ||||
5. | Understand if there are any tasks that are being implemented by external providers. Clarify if the budget implementation function is externalised as well (according to the GfNA, the NA is not allowed to externalise the key functions related to the programme implementation, e.g. selection process). | ||||
6. | Are there legal contracts signed between NA and staff members? | ||||
7. | Is the staff recruitment procedure transparent? | ||||
8. | Does the staff sign ethical policy rules, covering at least following: - prevention of conflicts of interest including a disclosure obligation; - use of official information and public resources; - working outside the NA; - receiving gifts or benefits; - dealing with and reporting on irregularities and fraud; - whistle blowing? | ||||
9. | Is the NA staff adequately informed of their responsibilities and main tasks (job descriptions)? | ||||
10. | Is the segregation of duties ensured (no overlap between duties mentioned in Guide for NAs section 2.3.2)? | ||||
4. PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES | |||||
1. | Is the manual of procedures complete (main procedures) and updated? Does it clearly specify the different processes (for each process checked during the visit, please verify with the manual)? Please check for each process verified if the procedure exists and corresponds to the reality. | The NA's manual of procedures to be requested in advance | |||
The manual should also include: - issuing Call for proposals (when applicable) - evaluation of grant applications and taking grant award decision - issuing of contracts/agreements - tendering procedures - documents archiving system | |||||
2. | Is the manual of procedure available for all staff? | ||||
5. MANAGEMENT SUPERVISION (RISK ASSESSMENT, GOVERNANCE, EXCEPTIONS) | |||||
1. | Has the NA implemented a risk management procedure and control mechanisms to prevent the identified risks, irregularities and fraud? | ||||
2. | Are the supervisory activities clearly defined and documented? | ||||
3. | Other issues raised? | ||||
6. INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE: MEETING WITH THE SERVICES/AUDITORS IN CHARGE OF INTERNAL AUDIT. | |||||
1. | Is the audit function in place? Is the internal audit function internal to the NA (or its hosting organisation) or is it externalised? | ||||
2. | Is there a multiannual planning of the internal audit tasks based on risk assessment? | ||||
3. | Is the internal auditor independent from the audited activities? | ||||
4. | Is the internal auditor different from the IAB? | ||||
5. | Are there written reports available? Review some of them. | ||||
6. | Does the internal auditor report directly to the NA director? | ||||
7. | Is there an adequate follow-up of findings? | ||||
8. | Other issues raised? | ||||
7. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND FILING SYSTEM | |||||
Please select files taking also into account the networks or actions other than ADEC (TCA, TEC, ...) When proceeding to the files checks of the files, please answer to the following questions. | |||||
1. | Has the NA developed and implemented an adequate document management procedure? | ||||
2. | Is there an adequate registration system for incoming and outgoing correspondence? | ||||
3. | Are the documents relating to Delegation Agreements/Contribution Agreements kept for 5 years? | ||||
4. | Other issues raised? | ||||
8. BUSINESS CONTINUITY | |||||
1. | Does the NA ensure that the core activities of the Programme are maintained and/or resumed in case of a major disruption? | ||||
2. | Other issues raised? | ||||
9. INFRASTRUCTURE: IT SECURITY SYSTEM, PREMISES | |||||
1. | Are the volume and quality of the NA premises sufficient to provide for safe and healthy working conditions for NA staff, with sufficient space for offices, equipment, filing and meeting facilities? The NA premises shall have easy access to NA staff and visitors, including persons with disabilities. | ||||
2. | Do measures exist to prevent unauthorised access to NA systems and files to prevent loss of data and to prevent that doubt would be cast on the accuracy and authenticity of the data? Are the back-up procedures adequate? | ||||
3. | Is the access to the accounting, banking programme and Management Information System sufficiently protected? | ||||
4. | Other issues raised? | ||||
10. PROJECT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT FROM THE CALL UNTIL PAYMENT AFTER FINAL REPORT (CHECK OF PROJECT FILES – A RANDOM SAMPLE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SIZE OF THE NA, COVERING ALL KEY ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED) | |||||
A. CALL FOR PROPOSAL AND GRANT APPLICATIONS | |||||
1. | Is the call of proposal adequate? - Publication - Complying with the programme Guide and GfNA - Specifying final date for submission, date of information, etc.) | Verify the E+ Dashboard and the NA Compliance Dashboard | |||
2. | Is the treatment of applications adequate? Including: - Registration? - Acknowledgement of receipt sent? - Audit trail? | ||||
3. | Selection and training of experts - call - selection method - contracts | ||||
- debriefing provided by the NA | |||||
4. | Other issues raised? | ||||
B. GRANT AWARD PROCEDURE | |||||
1. | Is the treatment of the grant award decision adequate? Including: - Criteria - Use of checklists - Automatic assignment of experts to avoid conflict of interest - Independence of evaluators - Training of evaluators - Audit trail | ||||
2. | Does any actor involved in any stage of the grant award process sign a formal statement on the prevention of conflicts of interest? | ||||
3. | Adequacy of the segregation of tasks: - Persons who have a function in the supervision of the NA cannot take part in the grant award process - A person who has participated in the formal eligibility check or quality assessment of a grant application in the selection round concerned shall not have a decision-making role in the evaluation committee, but may be called upon to provide information to the evaluation committee. - The person taking the grant award decision may participate as an observer, but shall not have a voting right in the evaluation committee. | ||||
4. | Are the requirements relating to eligibility checks respected? - Exclusion criteria - Completeness - Prevention of double funding - Audit trail - Is there an eligibility checklist in E+Link/PMM? | ||||
5. | As part of the exclusion criteria check, does the NA apply appropriate rules and procedures for excluding third parties from access to funding? | ||||
6. | Does the NA have a clear legal and regulatory framework for | ||||
exclusion from funding? | |||||
7. | Are the following exclusion criteria integrated in the procedures and rules for the award grants: A) Are third parties excluded from funding if they or a person having powers of representation, decision-making or control over them or a member of their administrative, management or supervisory body have been the subject of a final judgment or of a final administrative decision for one of the following reasons: a) bankruptcy, insolvency or winding-up procedures; b) breach of obligations relating to the payment of taxes or social security contributions; c) grave professional misconduct, including mis-representation d) fraud; e) corruption; f) conduct related to a criminal organisation; g) money laundering or terrorist financing; h) terrorist offences or offences linked to terrorist activities; i) child labour and other trafficking in human beings; j) irregularity; k) creating a shell company; l) being a shell company; B) Are there any derogations to the above based on justified grounds, such as overriding reasons of public interest such as public health or environmental protection? | ||||
8. | Is proportionality taken into account when deciding on exclusion from funding? | ||||
9. | Is the right of defence taken into account when deciding on exclusion from funding? | ||||
10. | Is the assessment of remedial measures, put in place by the NA to demonstrate its reliability, taken into account when deciding on exclusion from funding? | ||||
11. | Does the NA effectively apply rules and procedures for exclusion in the provision of grants based on the requirements mentioned under questions 6, 7, 8 and 9? |
12. | Are the requirements relating to the quality assessment respected? - Number of experts - Operational capacity - Ratio quality/price | ||||
13. | Are the requirements relating to the validation of organisations respected? | ||||
14. | Is the financial capacity check carried out when applicable? | ||||
15. | Are the verifications of double funding adequate including verifications with the other NAs of the country? | ||||
16. | Are the requirements relating to the evaluation committee respected? - Function of the members - Number of members - Written rules of the procedure formally communicated to the members - Adequate list of acceptance, rejection and reserve | ||||
17. | Are the requirements relating to the grant award decision respected? - Decision taken by the person who is legally authorised to sign grant agreements on behalf of the NA - Amount not exceeding the grant requested - Detailed list - Signatures - Justification of decision that differ of the committee's decision - Verification of the committee checks | ||||
18. | Are the requirements relating to the notifications of grant award results respected? - Successful applicants - Applicants with rejected proposals | ||||
19. | Does the NA make the results of the grant award decision available to the public within 60 days of the notification of grant award results to applicants? | ||||
20. | Is the reserve list set up and followed adequately? - ranking order according to the quality assessment points - in case of cancelled/terminated projects, the project with the highest number of points is selected |
21. | Other issues raised? | ||||
C. GRANT AGREEMENT | |||||
1. | Are the grant agreements in Euro? | ||||
2. | Are the requirements relating to ex-post publications of grant award results respected? - Is the grant agreement compliant with the EC model, dated and signed? Only the changes authorised by the GfNA or by written by the EC should be accepted. - Signature procedure - Use of language - Amendments | ||||
3. | Other issues raised? | ||||
D. GRANT PAYMENTS | |||||
1. | Are the requirements relating to grant payments respected? - Percentage instalments - Timeframe - Correctness of amounts paid | ||||
2. | Is the final report accepted? | ||||
3. | Is there a feedback letter? | ||||
4. | Other issues raised? | ||||
J. COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT | |||||
1. | Has the NA received any complaints from beneficiaries and/or other stakeholders? Please provide a short description. | ||||
2. | Describe the NAs' complaints management process : - what are the actions to be taken when a complaint is received from the beneficiary? - are the received complaints registered and maintained? - who is responsible for complaints management? - has the NA considered and provided an answer to the stakeholder? In what term? - are there any improvements implemented (if necessary)? | ||||
3. | Other issue raised? | ||||
11. MANAGEMENT OF RECOVERY ORDERS | |||||
1. | Are recovery orders issued and notified immediately after the final grant amount has been determined? | ||||
2. | Is the adversary procedure compliant? | ||||
3. | Is the segregation of duties respected (authorising of the recovery order and registration into the accounts)? | ||||
4. | How are recovery orders registered and followed-up? | ||||
5. | Assess the risk that recovery orders are not completely or not correctly disclosed in the Yearly NA Report? | ||||
6. | Does the NA send timely reminders? Is there a structured follow-up system leading to sending out regular reminders? Is legal action taken in time? | ||||
7. | In the case of countries with more than one NA, does the NA exchange information on problematic debtors with the other NA(s)? Does the NA receive this kind of information from other NAs? | ||||
8. | When applicable, does the NA recover by offsetting? | ||||
9. | Does the NA apply correctly the rules concerning the recovery of small amounts (200 Euro max)? | ||||
10. | Does the NA send proper and timely files to the Commission for getting authorization to waive recovery orders? | ||||
11. | Does the Commission react within reasonable delays to such requests? | ||||
12. | Other issues raised? | ||||
12. Publication of information on recipients (applicable for both grants and public procurement) | |||||
1. | Does the NA have a clear legal and regulatory framework for publication of recipients, covering: (i) adequate publication elements of beneficiaries; (ii) a reference to a common international standard ensuring protection of fundamental rights and commercial interests; and (iii) regular publication updates? | ||||
2. | Are the following requirements integrated in the procedures and rules for publication? A) As a general rule, does the NA publish information on the | ||||
recipients of funds containing at least the following elements: name, locality, nature and purpose and amount? Without prejudice to the rules and procedures on data protection addressed under the data protection pillar, are there any exemptions for justified grounds such as: - the NA may waive publication for reasons of confidentiality and security, for example if publication would threaten the rights and freedom of individuals or harm the recipient’s commercial interest; or - the NA may waive publication where the grant agreements are for low amounts? B) Does the NA publish the information regularly (for example: at least once a year)? | |||||
3. | Does the NA effectively apply rules and procedures for publication based on the requirements mentioned under question 21? | ||||
13. IRREGULARITIES, FRAUD AND PROBLEM CASES | |||||
1. | Check content of procedures relating to fraud prevention and get the list of alleged fraud cases and analyse the cases. Is the procedure compliant? | ||||
2. | Are adequate measures taken in case of fraud suspicion? | ||||
3. | Check with YMD (section II.4.1. Quality of the NA management system, point 6) if the follow up of suspected and confirmed fraud cases is well described and adequate. | ||||
4. | Is the Commission xxxxx informed with the "initial report on irregularities and suspicion of frauds"? Are all cases of suspicion of frauds or serious irregularity reported? | ||||
5. | Is there an adequate audit trail of all open and closed cases? (check with Yearly report) | ||||
6. | Has the National Agency designated an Organisation User Administrator (OUA) who will be responsible to manage the EDES (Early-Detection and Exclusion System) access rights of the NA? Who is it? Is the request for access done to DG. BUDG? Note: EDES is the exclusion system established by the Commission to reinforce the protection of the Union's financial interests and to | ||||
ensure sound financial management. This database contains the list of entities excluded from receiving EU funding. | |||||
7. | Does the NA consult EDES in the framework of eligibility check in the framework of the GAP? | ||||
8. | Other issues? | ||||
14. Protection of personal data (see also annex 9.2) | |||||
1. | Does the NA have a clear legal and regulatory framework for the protection of personal data? | ||||
2. | Are the following requirements integrated in procedures and rules for the protection of personal data? A) As a general rule, are personal data: - processed lawfully, fairly and transparently for the individual in question; - collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner not compatible with those purposes; - adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which they are processed; - accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; - kept in a form which permits identification of the individuals for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; - processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data? B) Do procedures and rules encompass the following principles: - right to information; - right to access and rectify or erase personal data; - right to data portability; - right to confidentiality of electronic communications? | ||||
3. | Does the NA effectively apply rules and procedures for the protection of personal data based on the requirements mentioned under question 2? | ||||
15. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND COMMISSION'S AND (IF APPLICABLE) LOCAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) | |||||
1. | How is the accounting system organised? (Is it computerised? Is an accounting manual developed?) | ||||
2. | Is the audit trail sufficient? Are the accounts and E+link/PMM updated regularly? Cross-check with applicable procedures. | ||||
3. | Are the following transactions registered and identifiable in the NA accounts: - pre-financing of EU funds for grant support received from the Commission; - amounts of interest received and accrued on pre-financing of EU funds for grant support; - payments made to grant beneficiaries distinguishing between pre- financing and balance payments; - reimbursements received from grant beneficiaries, distinguishing between types of reimbursement (reimbursement of unspent grant support, interest on late payments, financial corrections or penalties); - interest received on EU pre-financing. | ||||
4. | Are the data of the former programme available and updated? | ||||
5. | Are the accounts and MIS (other than Epluslink/PMM) held in Euro? | ||||
6. | Is the conversion into euro in accordance with the rules for conversion set in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement? | ||||
7. | Does the NA accounting system allow to distinguish between EU funded activities (ADECs), EU network activities (Salto, Eurodesk, ECVET/National VET Team) and other activities? | ||||
8. | Does the NA reconcile all data related to EU Funds for grant support held in its accounting and the data registered in EPlusLink/PMM at least quarterly? Are these reconciliations reviewed and formally approved by the NA management? Does the NA keep a proper audit trail of these monthly reconciliations? | ||||
9. | Other issues raised? | ||||
16. TREASURY MANAGEMENT (NA BANK ACCOUNTS, MONTHLY RECONCILIATIONS…) | |||||
1. | Check the following information for the bank accounts: | ||||
- Amounts declared in the Yearly NA Report - Bank statements - Accounting | |||||
2. | Does the NA receive payments of EU funds for grant support, the EU Contribution to management costs and the Contribution to networks to one bank account? | ||||
3. | If applicable, does the NA have a separate bank account for each of the former programmes? | ||||
4. | Is the NA or the hosting organisation the account holder? If this is not possible for legal reasons, has the NA obtained prior formal authorisation from the Commission? | ||||
5. | Is the single bank account on which the Commission transfers the EU Funds for grant support used only for the decentralised action grants purpose? | ||||
6. | Is the single bank account in Euro? | ||||
7. | Does the single bank account bear interest? | ||||
8. | Are payments of EU funds to beneficiaries of decentralised Programme actions made exclusively by bank transfer? | ||||
9. | Is there an adequate, effective and safe treasury management, based on the most advantageous market conditions? | ||||
10. | Does the NA reconcile the bank balances in the bank statements of the "NA bank accounts" with the bank balances in its accounting at least quarterly? Are these reconciliations reviewed and formally approved by the NA management? Is there an adequate audit trail? | ||||
11. | Check that no tax is withheld on interest. | ||||
12. | Does the NA record all required information on its treasury and interest on EU pre-financing payment of EU funds for grant support in EPlusLink/PMM? | ||||
13. | Check the security concerning the signatures and authorisations (including segregation of duties)? | ||||
14. | Does the NA incur negative interest on deposits? The NA needs to have submitted a strategy to the Commission which had to be accepted and attached to the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement. | ||||
17. PROCUREMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING | |||||
1. | Does the NA have a clear legal and regulatory framework for procurement? Does it apply to all procurement undertaken? What types of procurement (e.g. works, services and supplies) are regulated by this framework? | ||||
2. | Are the following principles integrated in the procedures, rules and criteria of the NA’s procurement system: transparency, equal treatment, public access to procurement information, avoiding conflicts of interest and using competitive tendering procedures and best value for money? | ||||
3. | Invitation to tender. Are there appropriate rules and procedures for the invitation to tender and for each type of procurement (e.g. open, restricted and negotiated procedures)? | ||||
4. | Selection and evaluation procedures and award of contracts. Does the entity apply appropriate rules and procedures for evaluation and award? Are there rules which ensure that the evaluation process is performed properly and confidentially and is not biased? Does the entity apply appropriate criteria for evaluation? Are there clear criteria for selecting the tender that is the best value for money, e.g. lowest price, price/quality ratio or other? | ||||
5. | Does the procurement system provide for an independent, transparent, non-discriminatory, efficient and effective administrative procurement review process for handling procurement complaints by participants not only before but also after the award and prior to contract signature? | ||||
6. | Does the NA apply appropriate rules and procedures for excluding third parties from access to funding? | ||||
7. | Does the NA have a clear legal and regulatory framework for exclusion from funding? | ||||
8. | Are the following exclusion criteria integrated in the procedures and rules for procurement: A) Are third parties excluded from funding if they or a person having powers of representation, decision-making or control over them or a member of their administrative, management or supervisory body have been the subject of a final judgment or of a final administrative decision for one of the following reasons: a) bankruptcy, insolvency or winding-up procedures; |
b) breach of obligations relating to the payment of taxes or social security contributions; c) grave professional misconduct, including mis-representation d) fraud; e) corruption; f) conduct related to a criminal organisation; g) money laundering or terrorist financing; h) terrorist offences or offences linked to terrorist activities; i) child labour and other trafficking in human beings; j) irregularity; k) creating a shell company; l) being a shell company; B) Are there any derogations to the above based on justified grounds, such as overriding reasons of public interest such as public health or environmental protection? | |||||
9. | Is proportionality taken into account when deciding on exclusion from funding? | ||||
10. | Is the right of defence taken into account when deciding on exclusion from funding? | ||||
11. | Is the assessment of remedial measures, put in place by the NA to demonstrate its reliability, taken into account when deciding on exclusion from funding? | ||||
12. | Does the NA effectively apply rules and procedures for exclusion from funding based on the requirements mentioned under questions 7, 8, 9 and 10? | ||||
13. | Is there a prior written agreement with Commission in place regarding all the subcontractors that are providing services included in the Delegation Agreement/Contribution Agreement (unless expressly provided for in the ex-ante Compliance Assessment issued by the National Authority and accepted by the Commission)? | ||||
18. REPORTING PROCEDURE FOR THE YEARLY MANAGEMENT DECLARATION (AUDIT TRAIL) | |||||
1. | Describe the process put in place by the NA management for the preparation of the Yearly Report/Management Declaration | ||||
2. | Is there a regular and adequate reporting to NA management on progress made for key activities (such as realisation of NA work programme, respect of deadlines of the project life cycle…)? Describe it. | ||||
3. | Are there written and approved procedures for drafting the Yearly NA Report/Management Declaration? | ||||||
4. | Check who has been involved in the preparation of the Yearly NA Report | ||||||
5. | Is there adequate supervision (double checks by second person, four- eye principle, final check by director or NA management) on the establishment of the Yearly NA Report? Do procedures include adequate segregation of duties? | ||||||
6. | Has the NA's Internal Auditor checked YR/MD before signature? This is not obligatory but should be considered as good practice. | ||||||
7. | Check on what information the latest YR/MD has been prepared. Test coherence with Epluslink/PMM and the accounting | ||||||
8. | Is the reporting based on adequate supervisory activities which are properly documented and thus traceable? | ||||||
9. | Other issues raised? | ||||||
19. MONITORING SYSTEM FOR TREATING COVID-19 EXCEPTIONS | |||||||
8. | Describe the monitoring system for the case-by-case assessment set- up by the NA to deal with the specific guidance provided by DG EAC for projects affected by the Corona circumstances. | ||||||
9. | Does the NA’s assessment procedure include a formal authorisation by NA management to decide that force majeure is applicable for a project? | ||||||
10. | In case of prolongation of projects, is equal treatment of beneficiaries facing the same situations guaranteed? | ||||||
11. | The NA can extend the Grant Agreement by letter signed by its legal representative or by formal amendment. Which approach was decided? | ||||||
12. | Select 3 to 5 closed projects (based on availability of final reports) which were subject to a COVID-19 exception and check | ||||||
13. | |||||||
14. | Select 3 to 5 closed projects (based on availability of final reports) which were subject to a COVID-19 exception.and perform the following checks: 9. Is the decision to apply force majeure properly authorised? | ||||||
10. Is the judgement of the NA to decide that the beneficiary is in the incapacity to fulfil its obligations under the grant agreement properly documented? 11. Canceled activities: Identify accepted costs entailed by activities in affected areas that have not taken place due to force majeure. 12. Canceled activities: In case the NA decided to cancel a planned activity following the application of force majeure, the costs incurred can be considered eligible within the project at final report stage. Was this the case? 13. Eligibility of costs for canceled mobilities: Participants are entitled to receive the grant based on unit costs (travel and/or individual support) in case they had to bear costs linked to the arrangements for the mobility cancelled before it starts (flight ticket, accommodation arrangements,...) that could not be cancelled without costs. Participants should be able to provide evidence of the costs incurred and that their request for reimbursement was denied. 14. Were additional costs (on a real cost basis) that were caused by the exceptional circumstances duly justified (e.g. the cost could not be recovered under an insurance scheme, the generating event could not be rescheduled, etc.)? 15. Did the beneficiary provide a signed declaration stating that the additional costs could not be recovered by other means? 16. Check whether the total grant amount awarded was not increased. | |||||||
20. Management of the primary checks: meeting with the services/auditors in charge of primary checks. Selection method, content of checks (checklists), set up (organisation and planning), management of results of primary checks, feedback to beneficiaries of grants. Review of REPORTS | |||||||
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS | |||||||
1. | Is the segregation of duties for staff involved in primary checks adequate? | ||||||
2. | Did staff involved sign a declaration on the prevention of conflicts? | ||||||
3. | Does staff involved have the necessary competences and/or qualifications? Is staff sufficiently trained for carrying out primary checks? | ||||||
4. | How and when are checks planned and agreements selected? Has the | ||||||
NA an adequate risk management which ensures risk-based selected checks if needed? - desk checks - on the spot during the project implementation - on the spot after completion of the project - system checks | |||||
5. | Are additional checks organised when there are suspected problem cases, high error rates for an action, etc.? | ||||
6. | Are results of all checks well encoded in EPluslink/PMM? | ||||
7. | Are the checks coordinated with other NAs in the same country, if applicable? | ||||
B. FILES VERIFICATION ONLY WITH REGARD TO PRIMARY CHECKS | |||||
1. | Select from EPlusLink/PMM (before the visit takes place) a random of primary checks (covering all Key Actions and fields) for detailed testing: - final reports checks of grant beneficiaries - desk checks - on-the-spot checks during project implementation - on-the-spot checks after completion of the project - system checks | ||||
2. | What method is selected for converting expenditure incurred in other currency than euro? Ensure that the method used is one of the possible methods described in the contract model. | ||||
3. | Are the checklists adequate (for the different types of action and the different kinds of checks)? Is the quality of the checks sufficient? | ||||
4. | Is the difference between a monitoring visit and an on-the-spot check during action clearly understood? | ||||
5. | Is the beneficiary formally informed when the NA plans a primary check (on-the-spot or desk checks)? | ||||
6. | Is there adequate and written feedback? | ||||
7. | Are the files complete? | ||||
8. | Are all financial corrections properly encoded in EPlusLink/PMM and documented? | ||||
9. | Is the finally determined grant amount correct? | ||||
10. | Does the NA take measures in order to reduce the importance of financial corrections? | ||||
11. | Other issues raised? |
ANNEX 8.1 Checklist for ERASMUS+ (2014-2020) and European Solidarity Corps (2018 2020) Project life-cycle management assessment
Annex 8.1: ERASMUS+ (2014-2020) and European Solidarity Corps (2018-2020) Project life-cycle management assessment - Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
Project number | |||||
APPLICATION | 1 | Deadline for Submission | calendar for use of funds | First page of the PDF application in EPL 4. Annexes | |
2 | Application submission date | EPL (2. Procedures 0.1 and 4. Annexes) | |||
3 | Amount requested | EPL (5. Budget 1) | |||
EVALUATION PROCESS | 4 | Multiple submission | calendar for use of | GfNA 3.7.6 | |
check (Y/N) | funds | EPL (2. Procedures 4.1) | |||
5 | Eligibility check | calendar for use of | EPL (2. Procedures 2.1) | ||
date | funds | ||||
Number of | |||||
6 | assessments | GfNA 3.7.4. | GfNA 3.7.4. | ||
required | |||||
7 | Number of | ||||
assessments made | EPL (2. Procedures 3.1) | ||||
OEET evaluation | |||||
8 | (check if standard form, if complete | ||||
and well justified) | EPL (2. Procedures 3.1) | ||||
Results of | |||||
consolidated | |||||
assessment [if | |||||
9 | applicable, any | ||||
discrepancies | |||||
between different | |||||
assessments?] | EPL (2. Procedures 3.1) | ||||
Certification of | |||||
applicant: Before | |||||
issuing grant | |||||
agreement. | |||||
Certification of | |||||
10 | NA certification of organisations (Organisation ID) (Y/N) | partners: Before grant award. Status "Waiting for confirmation" is ok (it means that there were | GfNA 3.7.5. | EPL (2. Procedures 4.3) | |
some changes after | |||||
validation). "Waiting for | |||||
NA certification" is not | |||||
ok (applicant has never | |||||
been validated). | |||||
11 | Double funding | calendar for use of | GfNA 3.7.6 | ||
check (Y/N) | funds | EPL (2. Procedures 4.2) | |||
12 | Evaluation committee conform to GfNAs, date of | calendar for use of funds | GfNA 3.7.7. | Paper at NA | |
Annex 8.1: ERASMUS+ (2014-2020) and European Solidarity Corps (2018-2020) Project life-cycle management assessment - Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
meeting of committee (minutes?) | |||||
13 | Declaration absence of conflict of interests and experts selected automatically or otherwise unbiased manner | GfNAs 3.7.2 | Paper at NA | ||
14 | Date grant award decision | calendar for use of funds | GfNAs 0.0.0./0. | EPL (2. Procedures 5.1) +Paper at NA | |
15 | Financial capacity checked (date, or not applicable if <60,000) (Y/N) | calendar for use of funds | GfNAs 3.8.2 | EPL (2. Procedures 6.1) | |
16 | Bank guarantee requested (Y/N) or precautionary measures (e.g. split of payments; only balance payment) implemented | GfNAs 3.8.2 | EPL (for bank guarantee 2. Procedures 6.2, for precautionary measures check number of payments 6. Payments) | ||
GRANT AGREEMENT | 17 | Amount grant agreement | EPL (5. Budget Summary) + Paper | ||
18 | Date signature beneficiary | Paper | |||
19 | Date signature National Agency | at the latest within 9 months of the application deadline and a maximum of three months from the date of informing applicants they have been successful | EPL (2. Procedure 7.4) + Paper | ||
20 | Project start date | calendar for use of funds: earliest start date/ latest start date | EPL (1. Application) | ||
21 | Project end date | calendar for use of funds: latest possible end date: | EPL (1. Application) | ||
FINANCE REPORTING | 22 | Pre-financing payment amount | EPL (6. Payments) | ||
23 | Date pre-financing payment | within 30 days of NA signature grant agreement and before the start of the granted activity | EPL (6. Payments)+Paper | ||
24 | Payment delay respected (Y/N) | ||||
25 | Date of Interim report reception | At half-duration of the project or when 70% of first instalment has been used up: see calendar for use of funds | obligatory for KA2 projects longer than 2 years | Paper | |
26 | Date of Interim report assessment | within 60 calendar days of interim report receipt | Paper | ||
Annex 8.1: ERASMUS+ (2014-2020) and European Solidarity Corps (2018-2020) Project life-cycle management assessment - Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
27 | Date of second pre- financing payment | within 60 calendar days of interim report receipt | EPL (6. Payments) + Paper | ||
28 | Payment delay respected (Y/N) | ||||
29 | Date of Final report received | within 60 calendar days of grant agreement end date | EPL | ||
30 | Date of final report assessment | within 60 calendar days of final report receipt | EPL | ||
31 | Assessment checklist (check if standard form, if well completed) | EPL | |||
32 | Date of final payment / recovery | within 60 calendar days of receipt final report | EPL (6. Payments) | ||
33 | Payment delay respected (Y/N) | ||||
34 | Conformity of the final payment with the original amount granted (check if there are budget amendments) (Y/N) | EPL (6. Payments and 2. Procedures 8) | |||
35 | Amendments (if any) | check if any amendment was done in line with the Grant Agreement (paper) | EPL (2. Procedures 8.7) + Paper | ||
COMMENTS | General or additional comments -Global appreciation of the NA management | ||||
ANNEX 8.2 Checklist for ERASMUS+ and European Solidarity Corps Project (2021-2027) life-cycle management assessment
Annex 8.2: ERASMUS+ and European Solidarity Corps (2021-2027) Project life- cycle management assessment – Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
Project number | |||||
APPLICATION | 1 | Deadline for Submission | calendar for use of funds | PMM (Project details – Application data – Project overview and on first page of PDF application in Project details – Annexes – Application – Application submission) | |
2 | Application submission date | PMM (Project details – Application data – Project overview and on first page of PDF application in Project details – Annexes – Application – Application submission) | |||
3 | Amount requested | PMM (Project details – Budget – Budget/Grant requested) | |||
EVALUATION PROCESS | 4 | Multiple submission check (Y/N) | calendar for use of funds | GfNA 3.7.5 | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) |
5 | Eligibility check date | calendar for use of funds | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) | ||
6 | Number of assessments required | GfNA 3.7.7 | GfNA 3.7.7 | ||
7 | Number of assessments made | PMM (Project details – Annexes – Application – Assessment of Applications) | |||
8 | Results of consolidated assessment [if applicable, any discrepancies between different assessments?] | PMM (Project details – Annexes – Application – Assessment of Applications) | |||
9 | NA certification of organisations (Organisation ID) (Y/N) | Certification of applicant: Before issuing grant agreement. Certification of partners: Before grant award. Status "Waiting for confirmation" is ok (it means that there were some changes | GfNA 3.7.8. | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) | |
Annex 8.2: ERASMUS+ and European Solidarity Corps (2021-2027) Project life- cycle management assessment – Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
after validation). "Waiting for NA certification" is not ok (applicant has never been validated). | |||||
10 | Double funding check (Y/N) | calendar for use of funds | GfNA 3.7.5 | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) | |
11 | Evaluation committee conform to GfNAs, date of meeting of committee (minutes?) | calendar for use of funds | GfNA 3.7.9. | Paper at NA | |
12 | Declaration absence of conflict of interests and experts selected automatically or otherwise unbiased manner | GfNAs 3.7.2 | PMM (Project details – Annexes – Application – Assessment of Applications) + Paper at NA | ||
13 | Date grant award decision | calendar for use of funds | GfNAs 3.7.10. | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) + Paper at NA | |
14 | Financial capacity and Operational capacity checked (date, or not applicable if <60,000) (Y/N) | calendar for use of funds | GfNAs 3.7.6 | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) | |
15 | Bank guarantee requested (Y/N) or precautionary measures (e.g. split of payments; only balance payment) implemented | GfNAs 3.7.6.2 and Xxxxx XX.5 | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) | ||
GRANT AGREEMENT | 16 | Amount grant agreement | PMM (Project details – Budget – Budget approved/Grant awarded by NA) + Paper at NA | ||
17 | Date signature beneficiary | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) + Paper at NA | |||
18 | Date signature National Agency | at the latest within 9 months of the application deadline and a maximum of three months from the date of informing applicants they have been successful | PMM (Project details – History – Selection and Contracting) + Paper at NA | ||
19 | Project start date | calendar for use of funds: earliest start date/ latest | PMM (Project details – Annexes – Application) | ||
Annex 8.2: ERASMUS+ and European Solidarity Corps (2021-2027) Project life- cycle management assessment – Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
start date | |||||
20 | Project end date | calendar for use of funds: latest possible end date: | PMM (Project details – Annexes – Application | ||
FINANCE REPORTING | 21 | Pre-financing payment amount | see Grant Agreement | PMM (Project details – Payments) | |
22 | Date pre-financing payment | within 30 days of NA signature grant agreement and before the start of the granted activity | PMM (Project details – Payments) | ||
23 | Payment delay respected (Y/N) | ||||
24 | Date of Interim report reception | see Grant Agreement | Applicable only in case of more than one pre- financing payments | PMM [IT developments pending] | |
25 | Date of Interim report assessment | within 60 calendar days of interim report receipt | PMM [IT developments pending] | ||
26 | Date of second pre- financing payment | within 60 calendar days of interim report receipt | PMM (Project details – Payments) + Paper at NA | ||
27 | Payment delay respected (Y/N) | ||||
28 | Date of Final report received | within 60 calendar days of grant agreement end date | PMM [IT developments pending] | ||
29 | Date of final report assessment | within 60 calendar days of final report receipt | PMM [IT developments pending] | ||
30 | Assessment checklist (check if standard form, if well completed) | PMM [IT developments pending] | |||
31 | Date of final payment / recovery | within 60 calendar days of receipt final report | PMM (Project details – Payments) | ||
32 | Payment delay respected (Y/N) | ||||
33 | Conformity of the final payment with the original amount granted (check if there are budget amendments) (Y/N) | PMM (Project details – Payments and Project details – Amendments) | |||
34 | Amendments (if any) | check if any amendment was done in line with | PMM (Project details – Amendments) + Paper at NA | ||
Annex 8.2: ERASMUS+ and European Solidarity Corps (2021-2027) Project life- cycle management assessment – Checklist | |||||
GENERAL INFORMATION | Deadlines | Rules | Source for checking | ||
the Grant Agreement | |||||
COMMENTS | General or additional comments -Global appreciation of the NA management | ||||
ANNEX 9.1 Indicative audit programme (IAP) for substantive testing
Conditions to be checked | Procedures | Instructions on findings | |
KA1 Annex III I.2.A of the grant agreemen t (GA) | TRAVEL SUPPORT COST CALCULATION: The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events. | Obtain the calculation of the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. The unit contribution should be the one applicable to the distance band concerned according to the location of the participant. Obtain proof of attendance of the activity in the form of a declaration signed by the receiving organisation specifying the name of the participant, the purpose of the activity, as well as its starting and end date. Studies should be supported by a Transcript of Records and traineeships by a Traineeship Certificate or statement. | Differences in the number of participants or incorrect use of distance bands, and unit costs not supported by evidence must be quantified and reported as errors |
KA1 Annex III I.2.B of the GA | INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT CALCULATION: The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events | Obtain the calculation of the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. The grant amount is calculated by multiplying the number of days/months per participant, including accompanying persons, by the unit contribution applicable per day/month for the receiving country concerned as specified in Annex IV of the Agreement. One travel day before the activity and one travel day following the activity can be included for the calculation of individual support if relevant. If the confirmed period of stay is longer than the one indicated in the grant agreement, the additional days are to be considered a period of "zero-grant". For HE students , confirmed period of stay shorter by 5 days or more than the one indicated in the grant agreement need to be adjusted in the Mobility Tool (MT). Interruptions, suspensions, and terminiations need to be correctly deducted in line with the grant agreement. Obtain proof of attendance of the activity in the form of a declaration signed by the receiving organisation specifying the name of the participant, the purpose of the activity, as well as its starting and end date. Studies should be supported by a Transcript of Records and traineeships by a Traineeship Certificate or statement. For volunteers, proof of attendance should be accompanied with proof of payment as specified in the grant agreement. | Differences in the number of participants, time spent, or incorrect use of unit contributions, and unit costs not supported by evidence, must be quantified and reported as errors. Incorrectly documented changes in duration of the activity which would have given rise to a financial adjustment must be quantified and reported as errors. Other incorrectly documented changes should be recorded as an unquantified error. |
KA1 Annex III I.2.C of the GA | ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT CALCULATION: The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events | Obtain the calculation of the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. The grant amount is calculated by multiplying the total number of participations in mobility activities (i.e. regardless of whether the same participant will have undertaken one or more mobilities) by the unit contribution applicable as specified in Annex IV of the Agreement. The total number of participations considered for the calculation of organisational support includes the number of students and staff undertaking inbound and outbound mobility registered in Annex II. The coordinator may request additional organisational support to the NA for participants with a zero-grant from Erasmus+ EU funds. The total number of persons considered for organisational support excludes persons accompanying participants at their activity abroad and additional mobilities that may be organised by transferring funds between budget categories. Triggering event: the event that conditions the entitlement to the grant is that the participant has actually undertaken the activity abroad. Obtain proof of attendance of the activity in the form of a declaration signed by the participant and the receiving organisation specifying the place and start and end date of the activity, as well as the name of the participant.] | Differences in the number of participants, time spent, or incorrect use of unit contributions, and unit costs not supported by evidence, must be quantified and reported as errors. Incorrectly documented changes in duration of the activity which would have given rise to a financial adjustment must be quantified and reported as errors. Other incorrectly documented changes should be recorded as an unquantified error. There is a margin of tolerance of 10%, meaning that if the total number of student and staff mobilities is less than 10% lower than the number of mobilities specified in Annex II of the Agreement, the organisational support grant must not be reduced.. At final report stage, if the number of mobilities implemented is higher than the number specified in Annex II, the grant amount for organisational support will be limited to the maximum amount specified in Annex II |
KA1 Annex III I.2.C1 of the GA | PROJECT MANAGEMENT COSTS (For Youth Participation Activities): The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events | Obtain the calculation of the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. The grant amount is calculated by multiplying the total number of months of the project duration by the unit contribution applicable to the beneficiary, as specified in Annex IV of the Agreement. The beneficiaries must agree on the distribution of the amount between them depending on their respective workload and contribution to the project activities and results. Triggering event: the event that conditions the entitlement to the grant is that the beneficiary implements the project activities and produces the project outputs to be covered from this budget category as applied for in the grant application and as approved by the National Agency. Obtain as applicable: proof of activities undertaken and outputs produced provided in the form of a description of these activities and outputs in the final report. | Differences in the number of participants, time spent, or incorrect use of unit contributions, and unit costs not supported by evidence, must be quantified and reported as errors. Incorrectly documented changes in duration of the activity which would have given rise to a financial adjustment must be quantified and reported as errors. Other incorrectly documented changes should be recorded as an unquantified error. |
KA1 Annex III I.2.C2 of the GA | COACHING COSTS (For Youth Participation Activities): The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events. | Obtain the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. The grant amount is calculated by multiplying the working days of the coach by the unit contribution applicable for the country concerned as specified in Annex IV of the Agreement. A cap limiting the amount awarded for coaching costs will be set at maximum 12 days per project. Triggering event: the event that conditions the entitlement to the grant is that the coordinator is an informal group of young people AND that the informal group(s) of young people have used a coach/several coaches for the purposes described in Annex I of the Agreement. Obtain as applicable: proof of involvement of the coach in the project in the form of a description of the undertaken activities and proof of the time spent on the project by the coach in the form of a time sheet. | Differences in the working days of the coach or incorrect use of unit contributions, and unit costs not supported by evidence must be quantified and reported as errors. Incorrectly documented changes in duration of the activity which would have given rise to a financial adjustment must be quantified and reported as errors. Other incorrectly documented changes should be recorded as an unquantified error. |
KA1 Annex III. I.2.C3 of the GA | ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PHYSICAL EVENTS IN YPA PROJECTS (For youth participation events support): The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events. | Obtain the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. The grant amount is calculated by multiplying the total number of physical participations in project events (i.e. regardless of whether the same participant will have physically participated in one or more project events) by the unit contribution applicable as specified in Annex IV of the Agreement. The total number of participations considered for the calculation of Youth Participation events support includes the number of participants physically present during the events, with the exception of staff of the participating organisation(s)/ members of the informal group(s) of young people and facilitators (but including decision makers, if relevant). Triggering event: the event that conditions the entitlement to the grant is that the participant has actually physically attended the activity at its venue. Obtain as applicable: proof of attendance of the activity in the form of a declaration signed by the participants and receiving organisation, specifying the name of the participant (and the name and address of the sending organisation of the participant, if relevant), the purpose of the activity, as well as its starting and end date. Detailed agenda of the event and any documents used or distributed during the event. | Differences in the total number of physical participations or incorrect use of unit contributions, and unit costs not supported by evidence must be quantified and reported as errors. Incorrectly documented changes in the total number of physical participations which would have given rise to a financial adjustment must be quantified and reported as errors. Other incorrectly documented changes should be recorded as an unquantified error. |
KA1 Annex III I.2.D of the GA | INCLUSION SUPPORT FOR ORGANISATIONS: The costs claimed on the basis of unit costs must comply with the Grant Agreement. The units declared correspond to the actual number of underlying triggering events. | Obtain the total number of units claimed by the beneficiary. Calculation of the grant amount: the grant amount is calculated by multiplying the total number of participants with [HE: inclusion support] [All but HE: fewer opportunities] in mobility activities by the unit contribution applicable, as specified in Annex IV of the Agreement. Triggering event: the event that conditions the entitlement to the grant is that the participant has actually undertaken the activity [for HE: and received inclusion support for participants], [for YPA: the participating organisation has organised the mobility for the participant]. Obtain as applicable: (For Youth) proof of attendance of the activity in the form of a declaration signed by the receiving organisation specifying the name of the participant, the purpose of the activity, as well as its starting and end date. (For HE) supporting documents proving the payment of the inclusion support for participants, as specified in section II.2.A of this Annex. (For SE/AE): • Individual activities: proof of attendance of the activity in the form of one or several | Differences in the total number of participations or incorrect use of unit contributions, and unit costs not supported by evidence must be quantified and reported as errors. Incorrectly documented changes in the total number of participations which would have given rise to a financial adjustment must be quantified and reported as errors. Other incorrectly documented changes should be recorded as an unquantified error. |