OpenLegislation

Appendix ANNEX 7

United Kingdom

Original text. Later amendments are not shown.

MODEL REPORT BY THE AUDIT AUTHORITY

MEMBER STATE:

FUND:

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY:

ANNUAL PROGRAMME COVERED BY THE REPORT: …

A.

Annual audit report

1.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1.

The bodies that have been involved in preparing the report

1.2.

Identification and justification of major changes in the implementation of the audit plans related to the annual programme concerned

1.3.

Summary table of the results of the audits

Audit report

Member State: […]

Annual programme concerned: […]

Situation at: [day/month/year]

System audits closed since last report
Fund(s)Authorities concernedProcesses concernedScope of the auditMan-daysDate of final report
Audits of projects linked to annual programme 20xx
Fund(s)ProjectFinal beneficiaryTotal eligible costs(a)Eligible costs audited(b)Financial correction(c)Error rate(d = c/b)
Total000%
Total annual programme(e)(f)

Coverage rate:

(= f/e)

2.

SYSTEMS AUDITS

2.1.

The bodies that carried out audits

2.2.

A summary list of the audits carried out

2.3.

The principal findings, recommendations and the conclusions drawn from the audit work for the management and control systems

2.4.

Financial impact of the audit findings

2.5.

Additional work, where appropriate

2.6.

Indication whether any problems identified were considered to be systemic in nature and the measures taken, including a quantification of any financial corrections

2.7.

Information on the follow-up of the audit recommendations

3.

AUDITS ON PROJECTS

3.1.

The bodies that carried out the audits

3.2.

A summary list of audits carried out and the percentage of expenditure checked in relation to total eligible expenditure declared to the Commission

3.3.

The principal findings, recommendations and conclusions of the audits with regard to the projects implemented

3.4.

The conclusions drawn from the results of the audits with regard to the effectiveness of the management and control system

3.5.

Financial impact of the audit findings

3.6.

Additional work, where appropriate

3.7.

Information on the follow-up of audit recommendations

3.8.

Indication whether any problems identified were considered to be systemic in nature and the measures taken, including a quantification of any financial corrections

4.

FOLLOW-UP OF AUDIT ACTIVITY COVERED BY PREVIOUS REPORTS, IF APPROPRIATE

4.1.

Information on the follow-up to previous system audit recommendations

4.2.

Information on results of audits of actions of a systemic nature from previous annual programmes

[signature of the responsible person]

B.

Opinion on the functioning of the management and control systems

To the European Commission

1.

INTRODUCTION

I, the undersigned, representing the [name of audit authority designated by Member State], have examined the functioning of the management and control systems in the [name of the Fund] regarding the actions implemented under the Annual Programme for the year [20XX], in order to issue an opinion on whether the systems functioned effectively so as to provide reasonable assurance that declarations of expenditure presented to the Commission are correct and, as a consequence, reasonable assurance that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

2.

SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION

The examination was carried out in accordance with the audit strategy in respect of this Fund during the period [dd/mm/year] to [dd/mm/year] and reported in the annual audit report under section A.

Either

There were no limitations on the scope of the examination.

Or

The scope of the examination was limited by the following factors:

  1. (a)

    […]

  2. (b)

    […]

  3. (c)

    Etc.

(Indicate any limitation on the scope of the examination, for example any systemic problems, weaknesses in the management and control system, lack of supporting documentation, cases under legal proceedings, etc., and estimate the amounts of expenditure and the Community contribution affected. If the audit authority does not consider that the limitations have an impact on the expenditure declared, this should be stated.)

3.

OPINION

Either (unqualified opinion)

Based on the examination referred to above, it is my opinion that, for the abovementioned annual programme, the management and control systems established for the [name of the Fund] complied with the applicable requirements of the basic act [reference] [and Commission Decision No [XXX/2007/EC] and functioned effectively so as to provide reasonable assurance that declarations of expenditure presented to the Commission are correct and, as a consequence, reasonable assurance that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

Or (qualified opinion)

Based on the examination referred to above, it is my opinion that, for the abovementioned annual programme, the management and control systems established for the [name of the Fund] complied with the applicable requirements of the basic act [reference] [and Commission Decision No XXX/2007/EC] and functioned effectively so as to provide reasonable assurance that declarations of expenditure presented to the Commission are correct and, as a consequence, reasonable assurance that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, except in the following respects:

  1. (a)

    […]

  2. (b)

    […]

  3. (c)

    Etc.

My reasons for considering that this (these) aspect(s) of the systems did not comply with the requirements and/or did not operate in such a way as to give a reasonable assurance on the correctness of the declarations of expenditure presented to the Commission are as follows:

  1. (a)

    […]

  2. (b)

    […]

  3. (c)

    Etc.

I estimate the impact of the qualification(s) to be […] % of the total expenditure declared. The Community contribution affected is thus […].

Or (adverse opinion)

Based on the examination referred to above, it is my opinion that, for the abovementioned annual programme, the management and control system established for the [name of the Fund] did not comply with the requirements of Articles […] of the basic act [reference] [and Commission Decision No XXX/2007/EC] and did not function effectively so as to provide reasonable assurance that declarations of expenditure presented to the Commission are correct and, as a consequence, does not provide reasonable assurance that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

This adverse opinion is based on:

  1. (a)

    […]

  2. (b)

    […]

  3. (c)

    Etc.

Date

Signature

[signature of the responsible person]

C.

Validation of the payment request

To the European Commission

1.

INTRODUCTION

I, the undersigned, representing the (name of the audit authority designated by Member State), have, for the annual programme [20xx] of the [name of the Fund], examined the results of the audit work carried out on this annual programme [and have carried out the additional work I judged necessary as set out in the report].

I have planned and performed this work with a view to assessing whether the request for payment of the balance of the Community contribution to the annual programme [20xx] is valid and the underlying transactions covered by the declarations of expenditure regarding this annual programme are legal and regular.

2.

SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION

Either

There were no limitations on the scope of the examination.

Or

The scope of the examination was limited by the following factors:

  1. (a)

    […]

  2. (b)

    […]

  3. (c)

    Etc.

3.

OPINION

Either (unqualified opinion)

Based on the examination referred to above, it is my opinion that the declarations of expenditure present fairly, in all material respects, the expenditure paid under the annual programme and that the request for payment of the balance of the Community contribution to this annual programme is valid.

Or (qualified opinion)

Based on the examination referred to above, it is my opinion that the declarations of expenditure present fairly, in all material respects, the expenditure paid under the annual programme and that the request for payment of the balance of the Community contribution to this annual programme is valid, except with regard to the following points:

  1. (a)

    […]

  2. (b)

    […]

  3. (c)

    Etc.

I estimate the impact of these qualifications to be […] of the total expenditure declared. The Community contribution affected is thus […].

Or (adverse opinion)

Based on the examination referred to above, it is my opinion that the declarations of expenditure do not present fairly, in all material respects, the expenditure paid under the annual programme and that, as a consequence, the request for payment of the balance of the Community contribution to this annual programme is not valid.

Date

Signature

[signature of the responsible person]