Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

iii) effectiveness.

Public funds must be used for the public good, upholding the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability, which are the two key pillars of good governance.

I strongly believe that transparency, fairness and accountability, with a focus on performance as well, should be seen as the main features of implementing these principles and fostering a sound financial management culture in public service and these have been guiding elements in both my private and public-sector career.

What is more, the challenging context we are facing requires that we all do our utmost to rebuild and strengthen citizens’ trust in public institutions and decision-making processes at national and European levels. In this regard, I see added value in a multilayered approach aiming to ensure that proper budgetary planning is accompanied by ethical governance and transparent reporting, followed by a thorough controlling and accountability process, all supported by clear and proactive communication efforts at each of these stages. Not least, I see merit in incorporating early risk analysis and mitigation in all stages described above, to ensure the best possible outputs.

The ECA has the important role of helping to establish a culture of professional financial management and ensuring its sustainability across all EU institutions. The ECA delivers recommendations and monitors their implementation, both key activities for the above-mentioned role. Identifying best practices and issuing audit recommendations are essential ways to strengthen sound financial management. Furthermore, the ECA’s substantial moral authority can help inspire more transparent and accountable accounting practices throughout the EU.

The ECA also plays a significant role in simplifying the legislative framework and administrative procedures where appropriate, contributing to effective financial management and facilitating necessary reforms. The EU needs simpler procedures with less bureaucracy, and the ECA can play a vital role in Europe’s simplification agenda.

15. Under the Treaty, the Court is required to assist Parliament in exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget. How would you further improve the cooperation between the Court and the European Parliament (in particular, its Committee on Budgetary Control) to enhance both the public oversight of the general spending and its value for money?

A: As a prospective Member of the Court of Auditors, I assure you of my commitment to building a relationship based on openness, transparency, mutual trust and efficiency between the European Parliament – in particular its Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) – and the Court of Auditors. As we are still early in the current institutional and legislative cycle, I believe we need to work, from both sides, to further strengthen the connection between the two institutions and foster a culture of constant engagement between the CONT Committee and the ECA. As such, if confirmed, I would like to assure you of my full openness to dialogue and suggestions on how to improve and strengthen the Court’s contributions in support of the decision-making process in the CONT Committee, meant to allow Parliament to exercise its democratic oversight effectively, particularly when exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget. Also given the current difficult regional and international context, I cannot stress enough the importance of safeguarding the EU budget – both at EU and national levels – and I am aware that this is a prime concern for this Parliament and for the CONT Committee in particular.

By working together, we can ensure that any expenditure of EU money is made in a legal, responsible, and accountable manner, having at heart the best interests of the EU and its citizens.

Moreover, since Members of the European Parliament directly represent the interests of EU citizens, it is crucial to incorporate their perspectives to ensure the ECA’s work remains relevant to the challenges faced by EU citizens, while upholding the Court’s full independence in its work.

16. What added value do you think performance auditing brings and how should the findings be incorporated in management procedures?

A: Compliance audits, financial audits and performance audits complement each other. While compliance auditing verifies whether activities and programmes comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, performance auditing evaluates whether these activities and programmes have been executed optimally.

In the context of the implementation of the current multi-annual financial framework for 2021-2027, the Court of Auditors has already recommended future-proofing EU funding for climate adaptation as part of the EU’s economic growth strategy, with implications for the EU’s competitiveness both internally and externally. This contributed to building a results-oriented approach and ensuring that financial decisions are properly translated into effective actions and solutions to the benefit of EU citizens.

Building on this model, further actions could be envisaged in order to support the proper follow-up to the efficiency of spending on the EU’s competitiveness objectives, based on performance auditing, also taking into account the need to consider the EU’s overall development objectives.

In the same logic, a stronger focus on performance could prove useful in support of the new Commission objectives related to simplification and accountability, also with respect to public procurement procedures. Performance-based evaluations could also consider the administrative costs at the level of Member States, as well as at the level of the business community. Performance auditing offers forward-looking insights, evaluating whether processes are functioning effectively to achieve the set targets and goals.

Given the projected increased complexity of the EU financial instruments, accountability and traceability of EU funds becomes even more important, also as a prerequisite of the performance-based model, to be considered in the future endeavours of the Court of Auditors, as well as in the relationship with the other EU institutions with budgetary responsibilities – namely the European Commission and the European Parliament.

That being said, we must always strive to make recommendations that are both relevant and practical, and that can be clearly understood and embraced by the audited entity, especially by the appropriate management level with the competence to implement them optimally in terms of time, cost, and resources.

17. How could cooperation between the Court of Auditors, the national audit institutions and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) on auditing of the EU budget be improved?

A: At this stage, I cannot provide a definitive answer, as I have yet to assess the matter from the perspectives of either the Committee on Budgetary Control or ECA. Gaining practical experience at the Court of Auditors will be essential in forming a well-informed view.

What is clear, however, is that the cooperation between the Court of Auditors and national audit bodies, as outlined in Article 287(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is crucial for effective budgetary control. In the context of shared management, leveraging the expertise of national auditors is particularly important.

Maintaining an open dialogue with the budgetary and legislative authorities, national SAIs, and other stakeholders strengthen the institution’s relevance and the impact of its work.

Both the European Parliament (through the CONT Committee) and national audit institutions that report to national parliaments are key stakeholders for the ECA, with a shared goal of safeguarding the EU budget and ensuring optimal use of EU taxpayers’ money. In this regard, the ECA should continue to share its relevant reports with national audit bodies and other institutions to keep them informed of its activities and to communicate its recommendations on pertinent policy areas.

Therefore, I believe that a well organised, transparent exchange of information, a strong understanding of each side’s needs, and effective collaborative arrangements are key to success. Any actions taken must uphold the legal framework for cooperation, ensuring both the obligation to work in good faith and the independence of the Court of Auditors and national audit bodies.

Moreover, I would encourage direct structured dialogue between the Contact Committee and the EP Committee on Budgetary Control, with regular exchanges on good practices and lessons learned, effective budget implementation and control, governance, transparency and accountability matters. Additionally, I believe that joint risk analyses could also be a part of this more structured dialogue, a common understanding on challenges and specific risk across the EU, and exchange on ways to address these.

At its end, the European Parliament also plays a significant role in raising awareness of the ECA’s work and the EU budget control system among their constituents. Also, the Members of the European Parliament should help the audit authorities in their respective Member States to better understand the challenges they face in carrying out their duties.

18. How would you further develop the reporting of the ECA to give the European Parliament all the necessary information on the accuracy of the data provided by the Member States to the European Commission?

A: High-quality reporting is based mainly on the quality of data provided. ECA evaluation and reporting depends on the quality of the data provided, especially since it supports the European Parliament in consolidating its budgetary decisions.

In this respect, also considering that European statistics are public goods, and building on the current Regulation on European Statistics, it is important to analyse, in dialogue with the European Commission and the other institutions, how the current system could be improved to focus on new data sources, new technologies and insights generated by the digital era, as to ensure that the data provided reflect the new set of challenges and economic realities in order to support the reasoning of EU decisions and policy objectives.

Always remembering that the Court itself has limited resources and must best use them to report its work.

Other questions

19. Will you withdraw your candidacy if Parliament’s opinion on your appointment as Member of the Court is unfavourable?

A: As a former member of the Romanian parliament and former committee chair, I have full respect for the decisions of the European Parliament. In this respect, if any doubts were raised about my integrity or independence, I would of course consider, after discussions with my Member State, withdrawing my nomination. I would also carefully consider the views and discussions in the Budgetary Control Committee regarding the areas of professional improvement and act accordingly.

Nevertheless, since I was nominated by the Romanian Government and the procedure under the TFEU states that the Council has the final decision, I consider that following the full procedure is the correct way to act that respects all the institutions involved.