At the 1187th meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, held on 11-12 December 2013, the Supreme Audit Office was appointed external auditor of the Council of Europe for the period of five years, to be started with an audit of the financial statement for the year ending on 31 December 2014. Apart from NIK, the supreme audit institutions of the following four countries applied for this function: Germany, Greece, Italy and Norway. NIK was elected by a vast majority of votes (22 votes for NIK, seven votes for the SAI of Germany, four – for the SAI of Italy, and one vote for the SAI of Greece).
The opinion presents Sejm’s draft position in the proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal concerning the motion by the Prosecutor general for examination of the provisions authorizing the representatives of the Supreme Audit Office to process sensitive personal data. In the Sejm view, the questioned provisions, insofar as they enable inspectors from the Supreme Audit Office to process data revealing the racial or ethnic origin, political views, religious or philosophical beliefs, denominational, party or trade union affiliation, as well as genetic code data and those concerning one’s habits or sex life, violate the constitutional principle of proportionality in the context of right to privacy and the individual‘s information autonomy.
Article 22 of the Act on the Supreme Audit Office sets out the legal conditions for the adoption of resolutions by the Council of the Supreme Audit Office. Pursuant to this provision, the Council of Supreme Audit Office adopts resolutions in the presence of at least half of members of the Council, understood as the number of actual members of the Council of the Supreme Audit Office, at the moment of adopting the resolution.
The article describes the audit process quality assurance system that has been introduced at the Supreme Audit Office. The basic features of the system are hierarchy and responsibility. Control mechanisms have been built in at every level of the management and in every audit process which allows for achieving high quality audit products. Moreover, quantity requirements have been defined for the outcomes (audit programmes, post-audit statements, pronouncements on audit results). The underlying principle is that the persons at the higher level are responsible for both, performance of their own tasks, and for the end product achieved by the person at the lower level in the hierarchy.
This joint publication, written by Elżbieta Jarzęcka-Siwik (science editor), Maciej Berek, Bogdan Skwarka and Zbigniew Wrona, is a scientific monography dedicated to legal aspects of the operation of a supreme body of state auditing.
The annual work plan of the Supreme Audit Office for the year 2015, which was adopted by the Council of NIK (Kolegium NIK) on 29th October 2014, comprises 110 audits, including the following: the audit of the state budget execution in 2014 in 102 budget parts, and selected entities whose financial plans are included in the Budget Act; the audit of the execution of the monetary policy guidelines; four financial audits of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Council of Europe for the years 2014 and 2015, which stem from NIK’s international commitments (NIK was appointed external auditor of these organisations through a competition procedure); and other planned audits whose number stands at 104. The proposals for topics of these audits were developed on the basis of risk analyses conducted at individual departments and regional branches of NIK, as well as issues presented by members of parliament, and citizens in their complaints. The biggest number of audits have been planned in the following areas: public administration (19 audits), health (14 audits) and transportation (13 audits). Audits in these three areas will constitute 42 percent of all audits comprised in the NIK work plan for the year 2015.
In 2012, the Supreme Audit Office conducted a comprehensive audit of the implementation of the provisions of the law on self-governmental employees. The audit examined performance of local governors (e.g. mayors) related to this law with regard to, among others, the functioning of the position of a secretary in offices of local self-government units and defining the tasks and competence of persons involved in human resources management; the procedures related to the termination of employment relationship with other employees of offices employed on the basis of an employment contract and appointment; the rules of organisation of preparatory service; periodical assessment of employees; the rules of objectivity and impartiality of employees; the rules of remuneration. The article presents the detailed findings of the audit that was conducted in eight regions: dolnośląskie, kujawsko-pomorskie, lubelskie, łódzkie, małopolskie, mazowieckie, śląskie and wielkopolskie – in 45 local self-governmental units.
As a result of the amendments to the Act of the 23rd December 1994 on the Supreme Audit Office introduced in 2011, the NIK’s disciplinary procedure has been regulated directly by the Act on NIK. Chapter 4a of the Act “Disciplinary responsibility of nominated auditors” regulates the types of wrongdoing and disciplinary punishment, as well as the basic issues related to the process of starting and conducting the disciplinary procedure. The legislator, however, has not decided to regulate the disciplinary procedure in an exhaustive manner in the Act on NIK, whose Article 97p refers to the relevant regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases that have not been regulated in the Act on NIK. The article attempts to present the principle of directness in the disciplinary procedure at the Supreme Audit Office and to discuss situations in which it is possible to refrain from this principle.
The article presents a multi-faceted evaluation of the design and implementation of performance-based budget in Poland. In the beginning the author introduces the rationale behind the performance budgeting. Next, the methodology applied to performance-based budgeting is covered (various tasks, measures, indicators). In the final section the author introduces the results of the audit conducted by the Polish Supreme Audit Office in the Ministry of Finance and selected government units at the turn of 2011 and 2012.
The amendments to the Act on the Supreme Audit Office – despite numerous significant changes – are not as deep with regard to the evidence proceedings as, for instance, with regard to examination of reservations. The regulations that were in force before proved, in the majority of cases, to work well in practice. It is rightly observed that, due to the lack of revolutionary changes in this respect, the practice developed so far in the use of evidence sources and evidence measures is still valid. However, some corrections were necessary, especially with a view to improving evidence procedures. The changes introduced in this area are usually well received, both by audit practitioners and authors of literature on the topic.
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.
The Supreme Audit Office, although its tasks are realised on the basis of annual work plans, is also mandated to conduct ad hoc audits, including coordinated ad hoc audits. This is the case when there is an urgent need for examining a specific topic of special importance to the functioning of the State. Ad hoc audits are not included in the NIK work plan, however the issues they touch upon can be subject to a planned audit with a broader scope. The article presents the findings of nine coordinated ad hoc audits carried out in the years 2014–2016.
The article attempts to discuss the reasons for dismissing disciplinary proceedings at the Supreme Audit Office and the contents of the ruling that the Disciplinary Committee should issue in this regard. Since the provisions of the Act on NIK of 23rd December 1994 do not regulate this issue, and Article 97p of the Act sets forth that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Polish: k.p.k.) should be applied accordingly. The ruling on dismissal of disciplinary proceedings at NIK should include the contents listed in Article 413(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions of Article 17(1) of the Code shall also be applied accordingly. The article presents a set of situations when criminal proceedings shall not be conducted or shall be dismissed. Since we should assume that a dismissal of disciplinary proceedings, similarly as is in the case of dismissal of criminal procedure, takes place when further proceedings are impermissible or pointless.
In the Act of 23rd December 1994 on the Supreme Audit Office, the appeal procedure has been regulated in a very general way, in the chapter entitled Disciplinary Liability of Appointed Auditors. With regard to the manner and course of the procedure, it has been stated that the adjudication team of the Disciplinary Committee for Appeals makes a ruling after the case has been heard. The Act on NIK does not contain provisions that would regulate the course of the adjudicating trial, but it rather refers to appropriate application of other regulations. In his article, the author discusses the stages of the appeal trial: initial proceedings, the disciplinary procedure, opinions of the parties. The article also presents the regulations related to a break and adjournment of the appeal trial applied in the disciplinary procedure at NIK.
In criminal proceedings, this prohibition is to ensure that a decision from a court of appeal is not amended to a worse one, if the ruling is in favour of the accused. The European Court of Human Rights is for respecting the reformationis in peius prohibition, and for not toughening the ruling by the appeal court. The Constitutional Tribunal has emphasised many times that “Due to the fact that the right to defence is ingrained in the constitutional principle of the democratic state of law, it relates not only to criminal proceedings, but also to other proceedings taking place in the area of responsibility that is of repressive nature”. Hence, the right to defence applies to those subject to disciplinary proceedings at NIK as well. In his article, the author discusses the regulations that allow for using the reformationis in peius prohibition in these proceedings.
“Annual Work Plan of the Supreme Audit Office for the Year 2016”, adopted by the Council of NIK on 26th October 2015, comprises 100 audits, including: the audit of the state budget execution in 2015 in over 100 budget parts and selected auditees whose financial plans are included in the Budget Act; the audit of the execution of the monetary policy guidelines in 2015; four financial audits of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research and the Council of Europe for 2015 and 2016, which are part of international obligations of NIK (following a competition, the Supreme Audit Office was appointed external auditor of these two organisations); and 94 other planned audits. All audit proposals were classified according to the main government administration departments, the state functions according to COFOG, horizontal and sectoral risk, and audit type. The largest number of audits (according to government administration departments) have been planned in the following sections: public administration (14 audits, which equals to 15 percent of all audits included in the plan for 2016), health (13 audits, i.e. 13 percent of all planned audits) and education (nine audits, i.e. 9 percent). Audits that will be conducted in these three sectors constitute 37 percent of all audits included in NIK’s work plan for 2016.
As a result of their audits, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) formulate proposals addressed to auditees and other relevant entities. These may include proposals suggesting a need to change the binding legal acts or to issue new acts (de lege ferenda proposals). In his article, the author describes how NIK develops such proposals in comparison with practices of other SAIs, as well as the activities aimed at providing the quality and effectiveness of such proposals, for instance, by their appropriate formulation, by making a register of proposals, by including the list of proposals in the annual activity report of NIK, and by analysing how de lege ferenda proposals have been used while meeting with representatives of the parliament and the government. The article concludes with the issue of the role of NIK in the law-making process.
The Supreme Audit Office has checked whether external examinations do verify the knowledge and skills of students, in an audit conducted at the Central Examination Commission (Polish: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna – CKE), at five district examination commissions (OKE) and at 16 public school complexes for children and teenagers. The audit also covered the efficiency of CKE and OKE, and the way in which external examinations are used for improving the quality of schooling at individual levels of the education system. The audit covered the years 2019 – 2014.
The main part of the activity of the Supreme Audit Office of Poland is based on the annual work plans, adopted by the Council of NIK and submitted, for taking note of, to the Lower House of the Polish Parliament, i.e. the Sejm. This year’s work plan comprises 111 audits, including the obligatory audits of the state budget execution in 2018 and the implementation of the monetary policy guidelines. The remaining 109 audit topics cover four international audits that NIK has been conducting: the audit of the financial statements of the Council of Europe, the audit of selected organisational issues and several performance audits in the Council of Europe, the audit of the financial statements of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the OECD Staff Provident Fund for 2018, as well as the performance audit of the OECD. In 2019 NIK will also conduct nineteen audits transferred from the work plan for 2018.
In the Work Plan of the Supreme Audit Office for the Year 2017 over 110 audits are comprised, including: the audit of the state budget execution in 2016 in 111 budget parts; the audit of the monetary policy guidelines for 2016; four international audits: three financial audits – of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), the CERN Pension Funds, and the Council of Europe, as well as the audit of selected organisational issues and performance audits in the Council of Europe; 105 audits dedicated to specific problems, out of which 86 have the status of coordinated audits. All audit proposals were classified in accordance with the COFOG classification, horizontal risk, the ISSAI categories and the government administration sectors. According to the last classification, the largest number of NIK audits planned for 2017 will be conducted in the following sectors: health, environment, transportation, public administration, education, public finance, agriculture, national defence and internal affairs. The audits in these sectors will constitute 61 percent of all those comprised in the Work Plan of the Supreme Audit Office for the Year 2017.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.