{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2006-677/annex/division-5/division-5.2",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2006-677/annex/division-5/division-5.2.json",
  "legislation": "eudn/2006/677",
  "legislation_title": "Commission Decision of 29 September 2006 setting out the guidelines laying down criteria for the conduct of audits under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls to verify compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (notified under document number C(2006) 4026) (Text with EEA relevance) (2006/677/EC)",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2006-677",
  "path": "annex/division/5/division/5.2",
  "kind": "division",
  "number": "5.2",
  "heading": "Transparency",
  "text": "In order to demonstrate the audit process is transparent, documented procedures should, in particular, include a clearly defined audit planning process, audit criteria and audit report approval and distribution mechanisms.\nManagement and implementation of the audit process should be transparent to all relevant stakeholders. In particular, there should be full transparency between the audit body and the auditee. Ensuring the audit process is transparent in the eyes of other stakeholders will assist in the dissemination of information, and in particular in the sharing of best practice within and between competent authorities.\nThe Member States should adopt the appropriate measures to ensure their audit systems are transparent, taking national legal and other requirements into account. To that end, the Member States should consider encouraging practices that improve the transparency of the process. Some examples of such practices are listed in the Table below. When deciding on such measures, the Member States should balance the need for transparency against the risk of undermining the audit system's ability to achieve its objectives. In order to optimise the benefits of transparency, it should be combined with balanced reporting, that is a proper mixture of verified compliance (positive findings) and areas for improvement (negative findings).\nTable\nExamples of practices improving the transparency of an audit process\nNote: Member States should select the practices (first column) and the extent to which they are applied (remaining columns) which are appropriate to their particular circumstances.\nAudit body practices\nAuditee\nWithin competent authority\nAcross competent authorities (within Member States)\nPublic and other stakeholders\nAccess to documented audit body procedures\nConsultation on planning of audit programme\nPublication of audit programme\nSubmission of audit plan\nOpportunity to comment on draft audit report\nDistribution of final audit report\nPublication of auditee’s comments on draft report\nPublication of final audit report\nPublication of summaries of final audit reports and of annual report\nPublication of auditee’s action plan\nPublication of follow-up results",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2006/677/annex/division/5/division/5.2",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T15:17:28.687171+00:00"
  },
  "licence": "Open Government Licence v3.0",
  "licence_url": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/",
  "attribution": "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives."
}