Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 13

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kontrola podatkowa elementem prawnego systemu kontroli – wykonywanie funkcji kontrolnej w państwie przez uprawnione podmioty

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2015
|
vol. 60
|
issue 6 (365)
54-77
EN
Tax auditing is regulated in an act and has a clearly defined objective. It is governed by general principles of a democratic state of law. In the act, the rights and duties of the parties are set forth, as well as the respective proceedings. According to the regulations, its function is to verify and evaluate activities of public administration bodies. Therefore, it constitutes an element of the state’s legal audit system. The scope of tax auditing comprises a significant area of the activities of vital importance to the state’s functioning. Due to its homogenous subject matter, and the legal consequences that implementation of audit results may have, it can be stated that it is one of the main pillars of the system.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Okresowa ocena kwalifikacyjna mianowanego kontrolera NIK – egzekwowanie jakości świadczonej pracy

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2015
|
vol. 60
|
issue 1 (360)
48-63
EN
The objective of the qualifying evaluation is to confirm whether nominated auditors are still appropriate for doing their job. The evaluation also provides important information for auditors on how their supervisors perceive the way they perform their duties, and guides them on what should be improved, and on how to achieve a better quality of their work. However, there is no close connection between the qualifying evaluation and auditors’ career. The law only regulates the consequences in the case of two negative evaluation results in a row. A positive evaluation, even the best possible, does not guarantee any concrete benefits. It does not imply, though, that it has no influence on promotion, remuneration, or the volume of financial rewards granted.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Procedura uchylania immunitetu kontrolerskiego przez Kolegium NIK – immunitet gwarancją niezależności i praworządności

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2016
|
vol. 61
|
issue 2 (367)
15-27
EN
The auditor immunity is necessary to ensure appropriate performance of state audit tasks. Persons who do this job must be protected against potential charges of legal and penal nature, formulated due to performance of their professional activities. The auditor immunity cannot be considered as impunity, because the protection that it provides is not abused by the Supreme Audit Office. Motions to waive immunity are in fact very rare. However, the lack of exhaustive legal regulations in this regard does not allow for sufficient assurance as to the proceedings that are applied, especially in such a crucial area as the right to defence. In her article, the author presents the details of the procedure for waiving the auditor immunity by the Council of NIK.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wykorzystanie wiedzy eksperckiej w kontrolach NIK - biegły, specjalista i panel ekspertów

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2022
|
vol. 67
|
issue 5 (406)
8-28
EN
In order to fulfil the objectives of public auditing, it is necessary to appropriately determine the actual state of affairs. A broad spectrum of audit examination that lies within NIK’s competence, new forms of performance in the area of activities financed with public money, digitalization, technological advancement of various processes, as well as scientific and technological advancement call for expert knowledge. These concern all stages of the audit process, starting from its preparing, through evidence proceedings, to formulating and publicising audit results. In the article, an analysis has been presented of the legal regulation related to the situation in which the legislator allows for, or requires, the use of expert knowledge at every stage of the audit process. The most significant issue in the area is, obviously, evidencing with the use of expert knowledge. Evidence must be reliable, linked to the audit objectives and economical. That is why a vast part of the article is dedicated to experts and specialists. The author pays attention to the differences in the status of experts and specialists, the reasons for imperfected opinions, as well as refers to the issues and doubts voiced in practice, related to the engagement of experts and specialists in the audit process.
PL
Do osiągnięcia celu kontroli państwowej niezbędne jest prawidłowe ustalenie stanu faktycznego, czyli obiektywne i odpowiadające prawdzie. Szerokie spektrum badań kontrolnych będące w kompetencji NIK, coraz to nowe formy aktywności w sferze wykonywania zadań finansowanych ze środków publicznych, cyfryzacja, zaawansowanie technologiczne różnego rodzaju procesów, postęp nauki i techniki sprawiają, że kontrolerzy w wielu sprawach muszą posiłkować się wiedzą ekspercką. Dotyczy to w zasadzie wszystkich etapów kontroli, począwszy od jej przygotowania, przez postępowanie dowodowe aż po sformułowanie i upublicznienie wyników. W artykule przedstawiono analizę regulacji prawnej dotyczącej sytuacji, w której ustawodawca dopuszcza albo nakazuje skorzystanie z wiedzy eksperckiej na każdym etapie postępowania kontrolnego. Najistotniejszą kwestią jest przeprowadzanie dowodów z wykorzystaniem wiedzy specjalistycznej. Muszą być rzetelne, odnosić się do celów kontroli oraz racjonalne ekonomicznie. Dlatego najwięcej miejsca poświęcono biegłym i specjalistom. Zwrócono uwagę na różnice w ich statusie, przyczyny wadliwości opinii, a także odniesiono się do zgłaszanych problemów i wątpliwości związanych z udziałem biegłych albo specjalistów w czynnościach kontrolnych.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wdrożenie procedury ochrony sygnalistów : Wyzwania dla Najwyższej Izby Kontroli

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2021
|
vol. 66
|
issue 2 (397)
8-24
EN
In Poland, there are no comprehensive regulations to impose the obligation to protect whistleblowers by entities both in the public and private sectors. Limited protection can be found in the regulation related to complaints and motions, and to the breach of trade secret with regard to disclosing irregularities, negligence, illicit actions, when it is justified with public interest protection. The system for whistleblowers’ protection is regulated in various ways in the European Union Member States. The EU legislatu re for many years did not provide for a unified procedure for serving whistleblowing, nor for protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. This situation will change once the Member States introduce the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report bre aches of Union law. It obliges the Member States to provide legal basis for a procedure to report irregularities or misuse in public and private institutions. The Polish legisla tor is now obliged to transpose the Union’s regulations, which will allow to elimina te the current lack of comprehensive provisions. However, it seems more necessary to decide on the scope and norms for whistleblower protection. The Supreme Audit Office, as many other public and private entities, will soon have to face the challenge of implementing a system for protecting whistleblowers, as well as for using reported irregularities during audit planning and during auditing. In the article, the notion of whistleblowing has been discussed, as well as the scope where it applies. The defi nition of a whistleblower is also presented, and the need for an appropriate internal procedure to report breaches, and to introduce measures to protect whistleblowers. The article also identifies problems that may arise in relation to the obligation to keep auditor’s secrecy, and loyalty to the employer. An important issue is also how whistle blowing is to be used in audit planning and realisation.
PL
Dyrektywa Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2019/1917 z 23 października 2019 r. w sprawie ochrony osób zgłaszających naruszenia praw Unii zobowiązuje kraje członkowskie do stworzenia podstaw prawnych procedury ujawniania nieprawidłowości lub nadużyć w instytucjach publicznych i prywatnych. Nowa regulacja prawna sprawi, że przed Najwyższą Izbą Kontroli pojawi się szereg wyzwań, ale też otworzą nowe możliwości, których umiejętne wykorzystanie znacznie zwiększy efektywność działań kontrolnych. W artykule omówiono pojęcia sygnalizacji (z ang. whistleblowingu) oraz podstawowy zakres przedmiotowy, do którego ma zastosowanie. Przedstawiono definicję sygnalisty, wskazano na konieczność opracowania odpowiedniej wewnętrznej procedury zgłaszania naruszeń i wdrożenia środków ochrony informatorów. Przed stawiono problemy, które mogą pojawić się ze względu na obowiązek zachowania tajemnicy kontrolerskiej oraz lojalności wobec pracodawcy. Istotną rozważaną kwestią jest też wykorzystanie sygnalizacji w planowaniu i przeprowadzaniu kontroli.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Podstawowe konsekwencje prawne naruszenia zasady bezstronności : Kontrole NIK

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2021
|
vol. 66
|
issue 1 (396)
13-29
EN
Impartiality and objectivity should guide the behaviour of every NIK’s staff member. These are to ensure that the auditees have actual, and not only formal, right to obtain an objective presentation of findings and an objective evaluation of their activities. An evaluation based on selected pieces of evidence cannot be objective. Impartiality comprises both objectivity and a ban on arbitrariness. This is very important from the perspective of NIK’s independence. However, the legal regulations in the area are incomplete, and raise interpretation doubts, both with regard to the addresses of this obligation, as well as with regard to the legal consequences for its infringement. In this article, the notions of impartiality and objectivity have been discussed, and their mu tual relation; the entities obliged to comply with impartiality during the audit process; the risk which can imply that the value of impartiality has been breached and pose a threat to the audit process. The problems with interpretation have also been discus sed in detail, related to insufficient regulations regarding the exclusion of the auditor and competent expert or specialist, as well as the whole organisational audit unit. The article also contains a suggestion about a de lege ferenda proposal, necessary to elimi nate the interpretation doubts as for the application of Article 31 of the Act on NIK.
PL
Bezstronność i łączący się z nią obiektywizm powinny cechować zachowanie każdego pracownika NIK. Mają zapewnić kontrolowanemu rzeczywiste, a nie tylko formalne prawo do obiektywnie przedstawionych ustaleń i oceny działalności. W pojęciu bezstronności mieści się obiektywizm i zakaz arbitralności. Regulacja ustawowa jest jednak niepełna w tym obszarze i budzi wątpliwości interpretacyjne, zarówno jeśli chodzi o adresatów tego obowiązku, jak i konsekwencje prawne związane z jego naruszeniem. W artykule omówiono oba pojęcia oraz ich wzajemną relację, wskazano podmioty zobowiązane do zachowania bezstronności w postępowaniu kontrolnym, a także ryzyko, które może prowadzić do naruszenia tej zasady i stanowić zagrożenie dla całego procesu. Szczegółowo przedstawiono problemy interpretacyjne wynikające z niedostatków przepisów poświęconych wyłączeniu kontrolera i odpowiednio – biegłego lub specjalisty – oraz całej kontrolnej jednostki organizacyjnej. Zaproponowano również postulat de lege ferenda konieczny do usunięcia wątpliwości interpretacyjnych przy stosowaniu art. 31 ustawy o NIK.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Przetwarzanie danych osobowych przedsiębiorców : Postępowanie kontrolne NIK

100%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2020
|
vol. 65
|
issue 4 (393)
14-30
EN
Audits related to entrepreneurs make a significant part of NIK’s audit activity. Auditing requires processing of large amounts of data, including personal data. The legal sys tem, with regard to the scope and processing of entrepreneurs’ personal data, does not clearly provide whether personal data of entrepreneurs – legal persons conducting businesses – are protected with the regulations on personal data protection, whether the name and surname of a person – a business entity as understood in the Civil Code – are protected with these regulations, and – if so – whether it is legally permitted to disclose them and publish them in audit documentation. These issues are very im portant in the audit practice, hence in her article the author presents a legal analysis of the notion of a business, the relation between the functioning of public entrepreneurs registers and the obligation to protect personal data. The considerations and practical guidelines included in the article are intended to direct auditors’ attention to the issue of entrepreneurs’ personal data publication in audit documents resulting from NIK’s obligation to perform an informative function.
PL
Ważnym elementem każdej kontroli jest przetwarzanie różnego rodzaju informacji, a przede wszystkim danych osobowych. W działalności kontrolnej NIK rodzi to wiele problemów, ponieważ oznacza konieczność właściwej ich ochrony. Z drugiej strony, naczelny organ kontroli państwowej musi przestrzegać prawa do informacji oraz zasad jawności życia publicznego i jawności finansów publicznych. Pogodzenie realizacji tych przepisów jest niełatwe, zwłaszcza podczas kontroli przedsiębiorców. Wiele kontrowersji narosło wokół zasad i trybu przetwarzania danych takich podmiotów oraz ich kontrahentów w sytuacji, gdy są one dostępne w domenie publicznej. Artykuł wyjaśnia związane z tym wątpliwości.
8
Content available remote

Postępowanie kontrolne NIK po nowelizacji – najważniejsze zmiany

63%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E., Skwarka B.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2012
|
vol. 57
|
issue 4(345)
23-44
EN
On 2 June 2012, the final part of the regulations set forth in the Act of 22 January 2010 on amendments to the Act on the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) entered into force, related to the audit procedure. The authors of the article present these regulations, focusing on selected practical problems that will definitely be faced by auditors in their daily practice. The analysis of the regulations presented in the article will also make it easier for auditees to judge the nature of the amendments. The authors depict, among others, issues related to audit preparations – the development of audit programmes or topics, proceeding related to audit evidence, including access to legally protected secrets; elaboration of audit documentation and post-audit statements; examination of reservations; verification of audit findings; elaboration of pronouncements on audit results; implementation of audit recommendations.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Odpowiedzialność dyscyplinarna mianowanych kontrolerów NIK - znowelizowana ustawa o Najwyższej Izbie Kontroli

63%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E., Skwarka B.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2014
|
vol. 59
|
issue 4(357)
34-59
EN
The provisions on the disciplinary responsibility are set forth in legal acts, while lower level regulations cannot provide for the rules of proceeding, much less the rules of deciding on guild and punishment for deeds considered as disciplinary offence. In the previous legal act – after the Constitution of Poland of 2 April 1997 came into force – this rule was not obeyed. The provisions of the Act on the Supreme Audit Office of 23 December 1994 set out the rules of responsibility in a limited way. The amendments to the Act on NIK resulted in significant changes in the disciplinary proceedings. A new chapter has been added to the Act – Chapter 4a – that sets forth the rules of disciplinary responsibility of nominated auditors. The regulations in the field comprised in the Act are in accordance with the constitutional standards. Simultaneously, the Act has introduced several modifications that should improve the proceedings in disciplinary cases.
10
Content available remote

Rozpatrywanie zastrzeżeń – po nowelizacji ustawy o NIK

63%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E., Skwarka B.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2013
|
vol. 58
|
issue 5 (352)
10-31
EN
The new legal regulations introduced in the amendments to the Act on NIK have resulted in significant changes to the procedure for examining reservations. After the audit protocol was eliminated from the list of documents comprising audit findings, the duties of adjudicating bodies have been limited to examining reservation to post audit statements only. Now, audited entities are entitled to question all information comprised in post-audit statements, including those related to actual findings, as well as comments, assessments and conclusions.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Przygotowanie i przeprowadzanie kontroli doraźnych przez Najwyzszą Izbę Kontroli – działalność kontrolna Izby

63%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E., Proksa M.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2016
|
vol. 61
|
issue 5 (370)
31-45
EN
The audit activity of the Supreme Audit Office is primarily its planned activity. This is set forth in Article 6 (2) of the Act of 23rd December 1994 on the Supreme Audit Office. The legislator left some freedom to NIK with regard to setting the area of its audit activity, providing for a possibility to conduct ad hoc audits. Decisions on performing ad hoc audits are taken in accordance with the principles set by the director of the competent organisational unit of NIK, upon consent of the authorised member of the NIK management, i.e. the President of NIK or the authorised Vice-President. Such a model is aimed at preventing the excessive application of audit activities due to external pressure. And it is necessary because NIK’s independence and objectivity must be ensured, especially when an initiative to conduct an audit comes from the outside.
12
Content available remote

Dopuszczalność zaskarżania wyników kontroli NIK - możliwość weryfikacji ustaleń kontrolnych

63%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E., Skwarka B.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2013
|
vol. 58
|
issue 4 (351)
29-47
EN
The contents of post-audit statements can be changed during the proceedings that comprise the consideration of objections voiced by the manager of an audited entity. This is an important stage of the audit procedure. From the perspective of auditees’ rights protection and legal means they can apply, it is vital to define the legal nature of these proceedings. The authors of the article observe that the results of NIK audits are not subject to court and administrative control.
13
Content available remote

Przetwarzanie danych osobowych – wybrane problemy postępowania kontrolnego NIK

63%
Jarzęcka-Siwik E., Skwarka B.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2012
|
vol. 57
|
issue 6(347)
8-26
EN
After the amendments have been introduced to the Act on NIK, NIK auditors, on the basis of Article 29, paragraph 1 (2i) of this act, have been given the right to process sensitive personal data found in documents, databases and other materials of the auditees. Some deputies are concerned with this additional right of NIK auditors, and therefore they have developed draft changes to the act in this area. If those changes are adopted, it will in fact mean a return to the previous legal status, namely the impossibility of appropriate verification of audit findings. According to the authors of the article, it is not necessary to introduce such changes since now there are sufficient measures to prevent potential abuse of the right to access to information. These are, among others, the provisions of regulation No 15/2012 by the President of the Supreme Audit Office of 14 May 2012 that make auditors’ access to sensitive data limited to the scope specified in the audit programme or subject.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.