The workings of the Conciliation Body Peter BAUMANN President of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The workings of the Conciliation Body Peter BAUMANN President of the Conciliation Body 33rd Conference of Directors of the EU Paying Agencies DUBLIN - 2013 1

1st Conference of Directors of Paying Agencies WEXFORD, November 1996 2

Overview 1. Some Fundamentals 2. The Body’s work 3. Conciliation in the clearance procedure 4. Presentation of cases to the Body 5. The Body’s Procedures 6. On useful and less useful arguments 7. The results 3

1. The Fundamentals • Mission: To conciliate views of COM services and national authorities • Neither arbitrator, nor judge • Not competent on legal interpretation • Independent – neither counsel, nor prosecutor • Does not decide • Parties not really parties – different objectives 4

2. The Body’s work • Body established in 1994 • More than 560 cases received from 26 MS • Number per Member State: 1- 102 • Number of cases increases • Cases reflect development of CAP 5

2.1 The Body’s work - Cases by year Cases 1994-2013 2013 - prevision 50 45 40 35 30 25 Cases Linear (Cases) 20 15 10 5 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 6

2.2 The Body’s work - Cases by sector • 2002-2008 • 2008-2012 Market Area aid support Crops aid Market support RD Animal PO RD Animal Finacial Financial audit Vineyards SAPARD Cross compl. 7

3. Conciliation in the clearance procedure • Conciliation: last formal step before COM decision • Bilateral meeting: key element – clarify facts • Conciliation not a second bilateral • Bilateral procedure proactive – MS consider strategy • MS: produce all relevant information • COM services: ensure best possible basis for decision • Discuss basis of possible calculation in bilateral • Proper attention to conclusions of bilateral 8

3. Presentation of cases to the Body • Request from Member State • MS – what shall be conciliated? • Not necessary to repeat decided cases • Request defines field of conciliation 9

4. The Body’s procedures • In admissible cases: hearings of services and Member State • One monthly session • Body has case-file and has good insight in the case • Hearings: concentrate on key conciliation issues • Body: must base conclusions on solid ground • Absence of relevant information relating to arguments may jeopardize conciliation 10

5.1 On arguments • Not a negotiation • Technical, accounting questions • Key issue: conversion of risk into correction • Evidence of required controls • Evidence of sanctions • Is the risk the same for all expenses or sectors concerned by a correction proposal? • Evidence of other controls and documentation of reduced risk (e.g. organic farming) 11

5.2 On arguments • Calculated correction: solid, verifiable and relevant basis reflecting the risk • Discuss with services if relevant • Calculation: indicator of level of risk? • Action based on text in national program approved by Commission • Recurrence: Same measure or weakness? Evidence of risk reducing improvements? 12

5.3 On arguments • Difficulties in application: not proper conciliation matter • Have due consideration to applicability and policing • National requirements as part of control requirements • Mitigating effect of alternative control systems • Quality controls must be different from controlled controls • No retroactive absolution • Exchange of experiences between Paying Agencies? 13

6.1 The Results 2002-2008, synthesis 13-32 2008-2012, synthesis 33-39 14.7 Maintained Maintained <10% Reduced >10% 10-25% 28.4 Reduced <10% 56.9 >25 14

6.2 The Results 1. Amount for conciliation 2.567.177.035 € 2. Final correction 1.994.948.579 € 3. Reduction 552.228.456 € 4. Reduction/proposed 21,7 % correction 0,1 %-96,9% 5. Smallest/highest reduction % 96,9 % 6. Smallest/highest amount 2.275 € -100.892.420 € 15

7.1 Objectives – fewer Court cases? Cases brought to Court – synthesis 24-33 No. of cases To Court Pct. To Court All cases 79 31 39,2 Maintained 39 17 43,6 No basis for corr. 19 11 57,9 Reassessed 27 6 22,2 Tecn. adjustments 15 6 40,0 16

7.2 Objectives • Depolitisize clearance procedures • An impartial outsider to add transparency and assurance of quality • Does conciliation prolong procedure? • Common objective: ensure that Community Funds are used as intended 17