REPORT on the nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors

12.1.2022 - (C9‑0405/2021 – 2021/0802(NLE))

Committee on Budgetary Control
Rapporteur: Ryszard Czarnecki

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

on the nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors

(C9‑0405/2021 – 2021/0802(NLE))

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9‑0405/2021),

– having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0002/2022),

A. whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

C. whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

 

ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITÆ OF JAN GREGOR

Employment DeTAILS
	2/2020-present Vice-chair of the INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee 05/2016-present  European Court of Auditors, Member, Chair of the Audit Quality and Control Committee
	6/2014-6/2016 Czech-Moravian Guarantee and Development Bank Vice-Chairman of the Supervisory Board 2/2014 – 04/2016 General Medical Insurance of the Czech Republic Board of Directors, Financial Committee
	5/2013 – 04/2016 European Investment Bank Board of Directors, Remuneration Committee
	4/2012 – 04/2016 Czech Export Bank Vice-Chairman of the Supervisory Board
	9/2010 – 04/2016 Ministry of Finance Deputy Minister of Public Budgets Section State Budget, Local and Municipal Budgets, Debt management, State Treasury and Accounting, EU funds, EU Budget, Multiannual Financing Framework
	2/2001 – 8/2010 Ministry of Finance National Fund Department Director, Deputy National Authorizing Officer Financial management and Certification of EU funds, Competent Authority in the CAP, Financial Perspective and EU Budget, Own Resources
	10/1998 – 1/2001 Ministry of Finance European Integration Dept., Horizontal Relations Unit Head of Unit Co-ordination of financial and economic topics within accession negotiations, mainly Regional Policy, Common Agricultural Policy and EU Budget
	6/1998 – 9/1998 Ministry of Finance European Integration Dept., Horizontal Relations Unit Administrator
	4/1998 – 5/1998 Ministry of Finance Financial Policy Dept., Unit for European Co-operation Administrator
	3/2007 – 11/2007 Ministry for Regional Development Member of the Governmental Negotiation Team (National Strategic Reference Framework – financial issues)
foreign Languages
	Understanding Speaking Writing English (CAE) proficient proficient proficient Slovak proficient independent independent French independent independent independent German independent basic basic Italian basic basic basic

 

Education details

10-12/1998 Joint Vienna Institute, CERGE-EI Prague, macroeconomics, microeconomics, international trade, accounting and financial analysis (in English) 1996 - 1998 Prague University of Economics major specialisation International Trade, minor specialisation European Economic Integration 1993 - 1996 Prague University of Economics bachelor studies, International Trade, Scientific Assistant (Mathematics). 1989 - 1993 Secondary School, Žďár nad Sázavou, 1982 - 1989 Primary School, Žďár nad Sázavou,

 

Professional activities
	2020-present Audit quality, independent quality reviews 2016-2021 Coordination of Brexit related issues 2016-2021 Annual audits on the EU performance framework, performance reports (Office Accommodation, Tackling radicalisation, Customs), reviews (Future of EU finances, 2021-2027 MFF) 2004-2015 Preparation of EU Budget, Budget ECOFIN, mostly head of delegation 2011, 2014, 2016 Examination of the Czech economic development, head of delegation, EDRC, OECD 2011-2013 Negotiation of Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 2009 Short-Term Twinning Expert (monitoring of the Accreditation of the CAP Paying Agency), Ministry of Agriculture, Bulgaria 2008 Peer Review of Croatian management and control system (EU funds), Sigma, OECD, Croatia 2007 Management of EU funds, Own resources, OECD, Macedonia 2007 Member of Government Negotiation Team for NSRF with the responsibility for financial issues 2006 Preparations for euro adoption, Head of taskforce Public finance and administration 2004-2005 Negotiation of EU Financial Perspective 2007-2013 2001-2004 Preparation of the financial management and control system for EU funds (Phare, ISPA, SAPARD; Structural&Cohesion funds) 2000-2002 EU Accession Negotiator (EU Budget – negotiation chapters Regional Policy, Agriculture, Budget and Financial issues) 2000-2001 Negotiation of international agreements for pre-accession funding 1999 Pre-accession legislative screening (Regional Policy, Own Resources, Financial Control, partially CAP), 1998-1999 Examinations of Economic development of Central and Eastern European Countries, EDRC, OECD, 1998 Short-term stay, European Commission, TAIEX,

 

 

 

ANNEX 2: ANSWERS BY JAN GREGOR TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire for the renewal of Members of the Court of Auditors

Performance of duties: lessons learnt and future commitments

1. What are your main achievements as a member of the ECA? What were the biggest setbacks?

My main achievements as a member of the ECA include the introduction and development of the report on the performance of the EU budget. This highly appreciated annual report is part of the discharge procedure and was published for the first time for the financial year 2019. It is innovative as it is the first time that the ECA looks at performance on a recurrent basis. I launched the methodological preparation of this report in 2017 when I co-chaired the Members’ Seminar, which in particular focused on how to audit performance. The report examines aspects of the performance measurement framework, follows-up on previous special report recommendations and assesses the performance information available for the expenditure under the main MMF headings. The performance report brings the ECA scrutiny of performance of the EU budget to a higher level.

As chair of the Audit Quality and Control Committee (AQCC) since February 2020, I initiated and steered important methodological developments, such as the web-based ECA methodology (AWARE), more efficient clearing of findings with our auditees, clarifying rules to ensure the quality of recommendations and a strengthened approach to independent quality review (IQR). I also had a strong involvement in the quality review of more than 100 task plans and special reports. This enabled me to contribute personally to the quality of many audit reports.

As regards setbacks, I regret that we have not been able yet to extend the ECA audit mandate. I will continue my efforts to strive for the ECA to be mandated to audit all EU institutions and bodies set up by the Treaties, but also all intergovernmental structures that are of key relevance to the functioning of the EU.

2. What are the main lessons learnt in your field of competences / results achieved in your duties and audit tasks?

I was reporting member for various types of reports:

• Annual reports for the financial years 2016-2018, Chapter 3 - Getting results from the EU budget. In this responsibility, I enhanced the focus on more horizontal aspects of the performance measurement framework. I also evolved the follow-up of ECA recommendations towards a full coverage.

• Report on performance of the EU budget for the financial year 2019 (see previous question).

• Special report 34/2018 on “Office accommodation of EU institutions – Some good management practices but also various weaknesses”. This report helped rationalising the policy and the management of large building projects.

• Special report 13/2018 – “Tackling radicalisation that leads to terrorism: the Commission addressed the needs of Member States, but with some shortfalls in coordination and evaluation”. I took over this task on request by the Court. It was well received by the ECA stakeholders and awarded with the 2019 ECA Clear Language Award.

• Special report 04/2021 – “Customs controls: insufficient harmonisation hampers EU financial interests”. The report was welcomed by the Commission and reveals what needs to be done to make the Customs Union more harmonised and efficient, in the financial interest of the EU. Subsequent to the publication of this report and in view of proposing improvements, the Commission set up a Wise Persons Group to discuss the challenges facing the Customs Union, such as the rise of e-commerce, the increasing roles of customs in controlling non-fiscal risks, the future of risk management and governance aspects.

• Briefing paper “Future of EU finances: reforming how the EU budget operates”, February 2018, and Briefing paper “The Commission’s proposal for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework”, July 2018. These reviews provided objective figures and comparisons and were appreciated by the Parliament and often referenced to.

I also lead the Court’s task-force on BREXIT, which monitored the developments, prepared guidance, prepared subject briefs and a policy scan and identified audit ideas on BREXIT related matters. The work also included involvement in the setting up of the withdrawal agreement to safeguard an appropriate role for the ECA.

As regards lessons learnt, I can mention the need for recurrent reporting on performance, the benefits of an open dialogue with stakeholders and of a no-surprise approach with auditees.

3. What added value could you bring to the ECA on your second term and/or particularly in the area you would be responsible for? Would you like to change your area of responsibility? What motivates you?

I have a three-year mandate as chair of the AQCC (until 23 January 2023). In that capacity, my intention is to continue my efforts in the area of standards setting (INTOSAI), quality control and to move forward with a number of important methodological and procedural issues:

• Provide multilingual public access to the ECA renewed methodology,

• Reaching an agreement with the Commission on the practical arrangements for the adversarial procedure,

• Improving the communication with auditees,

• Improving the quality of audit documentation,

• Reviewing the implementation of the renewed independent quality review.

At the end of my mandate as chair of the AQCC, I will be available for accepting another term as AQCC chair or for taking up any other responsibility within the ECA.

As a member of the Administrative Committee, I will maintain a high focus on improving the budgetary and resource management of the institution. I will also remain strongly involved in general Court matters, such as the ECA strategy, policies, reforms, staff motivation, etc.

What motivates me is my sense of duty, knowing the added-value of the work of the ECA and the recognition I receive of colleagues, auditees and stakeholders.

4. How do you make sure to reach the planned audit objectives of an audit task? Have you ever been in the situation where you could not realize the audit task and for which reasons? How do you operate in such controversial situations?

For the audits under my responsibility, reaching planned audit objectives was possible thanks to good planning and by following a no-surprise approach with the auditee, including feedback on the planned audit before launching. What also contributed to reaching planned audit objectives has been the possibility to rely on our audit staff, which are highly competent and dedicated. This asset has been built over time with the help of thorough selection procedures, extensive professional training, creating attractive staff career paths and staff motivation initiatives.

During the pandemic, continuing the work at the usual pace and meeting deadlines has nevertheless been a challenge as missions were no longer possible and the availability of auditees was limited. Thanks to creative solutions, such as adapted procedures for clearing audit findings and maintaining close contacts with the auditees at all stages of the audit process, it was possible to limit the delays.

5. If you were reconfirmed for a second mandate and hypothetically, if you were elected Dean of a Chamber in the ECA, how would you steer the work to define its priorities? Could you give us two or three examples of areas to focus on in the future?

As chair of the AQCC, I steer the work and define priorities in collegiality with the other AQCC members and, for issues with high importance, in collegiality with all Court members. I also value the input of the staff of the Directorate of Quality Control (DQC) and the audit staff in chambers. It’s through the exchange of views that we reach efficient and effective solutions for the challenges we face.

Within the AQCC, I intend to focus on further developing and fine-tuning the ECA methodology and also providing public access to the methodological database. I would also further strengthen the added value of the independent quality review of task plans and reports. In particular important in that context are the quality of audit recommendations (ensuring that it is always based on convincing audit evidence, creating a typology of recommendations and link that to the follow-up of the implementation of recommendations). I would also like to further strengthen the cooperation with DG BUDG. In that context, we already agreed on the creation of a Working Group to define efficient working arrangements for the adversarial procedure.

6. If you had to manage the selection of audit tasks in view of the preparation of the ECA annual working programme, on which basis would you make your choice among the list of priorities received from the Parliament and/or the CONT committee?

What would you do if a political priority does not correspond to the ECA risk assessment of the Union’s activities?

Programming audit tasks is an important and complex process for which the ECA has a well-developed procedure. It involves several stages and considers various criteria, such as completeness of coverage, risks identified by the ECA risk assessment, materiality and relevance as indicated by our stakeholders. We endeavour to audit all material and / or risky areas at some point in time and prioritise based on the input provided by our stakeholders.

To realise this objective in an optimal manner, the ECA has started developing a multi-annual programming. The principle is enshrined in the ECA’s 2021-2025 strategy. In each stage of the annual preparatory process, account is taken of the list of priorities as provided by the Parliament and the Council. The ECA has significantly increased the consideration given to suggestions made. I believe that when stakeholder priorities are not honoured in a certain year, they should again be considered at a later stage.

Management of portfolio, working methods and deliverables

7. Producing high quality, robust and timely reports is key:

– How would you ensure that the data used in an audit are reliable and that the findings are not outdated?

We assess the reliability of audit evidence used. The reliability depends on the source (e.g. original documents or not, from an independent source or not), the type (electronic data, documentary evidence, interviews, etc.), the way it is collected (e.g. directly obtained by the auditor or not), the timeliness and the extent it has already undergone control (e.g. subject to strong internal controls within the auditee’s organisation). We also carry out specific audits of data reliability. I have for example personally supervised the work on verifying the reliability of data on performance of the EU budget.

Our independent quality controls of draft reports includes sample checks of evidence for key observations. This involves assessing the quality and timeliness of any data used.

– How would you improve the quality and pertinence of the recommendations?

In the reports for which I was reporting member (see above), I limited the number of recommendations to ensure quality, focus and impact. I ensured that recommendations were clear, constructive, adding value, cost-effective and closely linked to audit observations for which we had convincing evidence.

As chair of the AQCC, I made much effort to promote the quality and pertinence of recommendations. In particular, I promoted the further development and clarification of the ECA methodology on preparing recommendations. This process is informed by our annual quality assurance tasks on the topic.

Since I became member of the AQCC four years ago, I was paying attention to our independent quality reviews (IQR) and in particular its impact on the quality of recommendations. I personally challenged the need and/or the formulation of many of the recommendations made in draft reports. I also steered the development of our approach to IQR to the benefit of quality. This included introducing checks on the existence and quality of audit evidence available for key observations.

8. The aim of the ECA’s reform is to establish a stronger accountability relationship between the audit team and the rapporteur member:

– Given your experience, do you think that the role of a member is to be more involved in the audit work?

As reporting member, I consider that it is my duty to be closely involved in the various stages of the audit process: programming, planning, implementation and reporting. This includes participating in working meetings, managing risks, intervening when difficulties occur, maintaining close contacts with auditees and presenting the results to our stakeholders and in public fora.

– Would you change the way you work with an audit team? If yes, how?

I will maintain my approach to interact with audit teams, thereby making efforts to have a culture of open exchange and providing guidance where needed. I will also keep making efforts to motivate staff, for instance by involving them in all important decisions in relation to the audits and by involving them in the various high-level exchanges throughout the audit process. I highly appreciate the quality of the ECA staff, which are truly experts in many areas.

9. What would be your suggestions to further improve, modernise the ECA functioning, programming and work (audit cycle)? After your first mandate, could you give us a positive aspect of the ECA working and a negative one?

I would like to promote a further development of the ECA multi-annual programming. I believe there would be merit in better ensuring that all material and risky areas are eventually covered. Furthermore, I believe that the ECA should try to set-up the multi-annual programming to enable making overall conclusions on key horizontal aspects of budgetary management (e.g. fraud prevention, reliability of performance data, etc.) at certain moments in time based on the outcome of various audit tasks. These overall conclusions could be presented in the reports on the performance of the EU budget.

A very positive aspect of the functioning of the ECA is its collegiality. It is a real strength for making judgements of issues in a complex environment. As negative aspect, I would mention the audit detection risk. A particular aspect for consideration in this regard is our audit missions. The ECA has over the last decade gradually decreased its overall number of audit mission days. This was recently amplified by the COVID-19 restrictions. I believe that controls on-the-spot are needed to ensure the highest effectiveness of our institution, both in terms of detection and prevention given the deterring impact of our presence.

10. Under the Treaty, the Court is required to assist Parliament in exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget in order to enhance both the public oversight of the general spending and its value for money:

– With the experience of your first term, how could the cooperation between the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) on auditing the EU budget be further improved?

Maintaining close contacts is key for good cooperation. The annual CONT / ECA meetings are very useful in that respect. In addition, meetings dedicated to specific topics can be very valuable. A good example is the consultation on the report on the performance of the EU budget. Other such consultations could be planned in the future, also on quality issues.

– Similarly, how to strengthen relations between ECA and national audit institutions?

The Contact Committee framework provides a solid basis for cooperation of the ECA with national supreme audit institutions. It involves annual meetings and various working groups, networks and task forces set up to address specific issues of common interest. I think this set-up is flexible enough to take on board any topical issues.

Another layer of co-operation is the organization and participation in Peer Reviews. I believe they are very important layer of additional assurance on the functioning of Audit Institutions. We have recently undergone Peer Review on the implementation of our strategy and ethical framework. I think we could organize another Peer Review on the implementation of our IT strategy.

I have also supported the possibility to welcome Seconded National Experts from supreme audit and other institutions to work at the ECA. Currently, there are 15 experts working across various directorates.

11. How will you support the Parliament in the achievement of the shortening of the discharge procedure? What actions can be undertaken from your side?

Shortening the discharge procedure is challenging. The ECA has always respected the legal deadlines. We are dependent on the timing of the Commission’s publication of Accountability package. In particular the timing of the Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR) is very challenging for us. We understand that the Commission itself is depending on information communicated by the member states. It could be the topic of dedicated consultation meetings (see question 10).

Independence and integrity

12. What guarantees of independence are you able to give the European Parliament, and how would you make sure that any past, current or future activities you carry out could not cast doubt on the performance of your duties at the ECA?

I follow the Code of Conduct for the Members of the Court. I have no external activities. I never had political affiliations and never held any elected office or political position. Furthermore, I have security clearance for the level Secret (national and EU level). In my view, it provides strong assurance of personal integrity.

13. How would you deal with a major irregularity or even fraud in EU funds and/or corruption case involving persons in your Member State of origin? Were you in this situation during your current mandate?

As regards fraud, the ECA and I apply a zero tolerance policy, regardless of where it occurs. In my audit tasks, I have not yet been confronted with a suspicion of fraud, corruption or other illegal activity affecting the EU’s financial interests. If such a case would occur, I would ensure that these cases are forwarded to the European Prosecutor’s Office and/or European Anti‐Fraud Office in line with the current practice of the ECA.

The audit work for the statement of assurance might identify risks of fraud. As member of the Court, I am involved in collegial decisions about the statement of assurance. However, decisions such as forwarding a case to EPPO/OLAF are dealt with at an operational level. Our auditors receive training on how to detect and report potential situations of fraud.

The ECA’s strategy for the period 2021-2025 advocates for the intensification of its action in this field. We recently adopted an action plan covering all the aspects of the audit works and all areas of responsibility including NGEU. Within the AQCC, we launched and supervised quality assurance reviews on the risk of fraud and produced several guidance and recommendations on this matter. Furthermore, I chaired various meetings and professional trainings, sometimes in collaboration with EUROJUST, OLAF or EPPO, in order to step up the action of the European institutions in the fight against fraud.

14. The existence of conflict of interests can trigger a reputation risk for the ECA. How would you manage any conflict of interest?

In line with the Code of conduct for the members of the Court, I would inform the President of the ECA and seek to resolve the conflict of interest. I would not accept being reporting member for a task with which I could have a conflict of interest.

15. Are you involved in any legal proceedings? if so, what kind?

 No, I am not.

16. What specific commitments are you prepared to make in terms of enhanced transparency, increased cooperation and effective follow-up to Parliament’s positions and requests for audits?

As member of the ECA, I am strongly committed to transparency and cooperation with the Parliament in order to support and enhance its democratic role and enforce the accountability of the EU institutions. I intend to maintain this commitment. To ensure transparency in the area for which I am currently responsible, I would be pleased to report AQCC activities to CONT. As regards the Parliament requests for audits, I would support a more detailed feedback as concerns the take-up. I’m also willing to support an enhanced follow-up of ECA recommendations that the Parliament considers important.

Other questions

17. Will you withdraw your candidacy to a renewal of mandate if Parliament’s opinion on your appointment as Member of the ECA is unfavourable?

It is hard to imagine taking on a mandate as member of the ECA without the support of the European Parliament. Should the Parliament’s opinion be unfavourable, I am prepared to propose the withdrawal of the candidacy to the Government.

18. Being appointed Member of the ECA requires full attention and dedication to the institution itself and to ensure trust for the Union among its citizens:

– What are your views on the best way to assume these professional duties?

I am fully dedicated to my duties as Member of the ECA. In my daily professional environment, I attach a lot of importance to knowledge development, fostering team spirit, in collegiality with other members and within our audit teams, promoting an open and inclusive working atmosphere. When representing the Institution externally, I do my utmost to promote the quality of our reports and recommendations, and ensure optimal impact to the benefit of the EU budget and EU citizens. This also involves presenting the ECA reports to national authorities and Parliaments.

– What are your current personal arrangements in terms of number of days of presence in Luxembourg? Do you plan to change these arrangements?

When I took up my mandate at the beginning of May 2016, I managed to find house in mid June 2016 and my family gradually moved to Luxembourg. Our children started attending the European School in Luxembourg. Since then, I can confirm my continuous and full presence in Luxembourg and full dedication to my activities at the European Court of Auditors.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Title	Partial renewal of members of the Court of Auditors - CZ nominee
References	12535/2021 – C9-0405/2021 – 2021/0802(NLE)
Date of consultation / request for consent	5.11.2021
Committee responsible  Date announced in plenary	CONT 10.11.2021
Rapporteurs  Date appointed	Ryszard Czarnecki 17.11.2021
Discussed in committee	10.1.2022
Date adopted	10.1.2022
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	29 1 0
Members present for the final vote	Matteo Adinolfi, Olivier Chastel, Caterina Chinnici, Lefteris Christoforou, José Manuel Fernandes, Luke Ming Flanagan, Isabel García Muñoz, Monika Hohlmeier, Jean-François Jalkh, Pierre Karleskind, Joachim Kuhs, Claudiu Manda, Alin Mituța, Younous Omarjee, Tsvetelina Penkova, Markus Pieper, Sabrina Pignedoli, Michèle Rivasi, Petri Sarvamaa, Simone Schmiedtbauer, Vincenzo Sofo, Angelika Winzig, Tomáš Zdechovský
Substitutes present for the final vote	Pascal Durand, Maria Grapini, Mikuláš Peksa, Elżbieta Rafalska, Sándor Rónai, Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Robert Roos
Date tabled	12.1.2022