Do we have the right balance between responsibility for budget implementation and political accountability for the Union budget's use?

Résumé du document

The evolution of the budgetary procedure, with the new financial regulation of 2002, has increased the responsibility of the different actors and clarified the different management methods, increasing the transparency of the whole procedure. Those changes allow us to wonder if there is, today, a right balance between responsibility for budget implementation and political accountability for the Union budget's use. Since those two levels of responsibilities – responsibility for budget implementation and political responsibility for the budget's use - imply different actors, assessing the balance between those responsibilities means assessing the part played by those actors in the budgetary procedure. In order to achieve this assessment, we need to take into account both meanings of the concept of “responsibility”. The first meaning is linked to the notions of power and competence: being responsible means being in charge of something, being competent within a specific field of action – and sometimes being compelled to do something because no one else is able to do it. The second meaning is more political: it means that we, as a political organization, are submitted to an external judgment that can lead to sanctions, such as the obligation of resigning: this is the main criterion of a democracy.

Extraits

[...] They are responsible for implementing payments, cashing revenue, collecting debts, managing accountability and finances, and suggesting an evolution of the accounting methods. Thus, it may seem that the Commission manages the budget implementation alone, with the sole assistance of the actors named above. Actually, in spite of the rules defined by the treaty and the financial regulations, the Commission is far from being alone in this process: its role is actually rather limited, for two reasons. First, the institutional process tends to undermine the Commission's supremacy as far as budget implementation is concerned; besides, the role of the Commission in using the community funds is strictly limited, as the major part of this role belongs to member States. [...]

[...] However, the low level of participation at the EP elections in member States shows the existence of a democratic deficit, and tends to weaken the assumption according to which budget implementation is democratic. Finally, we shall wonder if the other actors member States, third States, international organizations which manage most of the budget, have a certain degree of responsibility and can be controlled and sanctioned for irregularities. As for shared and decentralised management, article 56 of the new financial regulation focuses on States' responsibility, and on the measures they ought to take. [...]

[...] The last two procedures imply that the Commission's decisions ought to be tightly conform to the measures suggested by the committees; the Parliament may even intervene in the last procedure. Does the participation of committees to the budget implementation meet the principle of sound management evoked in article 274 of the EC Treaty? This question is a source of great controversy, for the Parliament considers that this procedure impairs this principle, while the Council is, obviously, in favour of the participation of committees. The current procedure appears as rather positive, insofar as the power of committees is not systematically compulsory. [...]

[...] Therefore, the Commission makes sure that the States using Community funds apply the requested procedures and controls: the new regulation extends a procedure of control and sanction called “clearance-of-accounts”, along with financial correction mechanisms, aiming at protecting the Community's interests. Those procedures are detailed in the specific texts on CAP or structural funds, which are the two main funds implemented by member States. Furthermore, the Court of auditors is more and more linked to the national Courts, since member States play a great part in managing the EU budget. [...]

[...] This competence is clearly defined in article 274 of the EC treaty: The Commission shall implement the budget, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations made pursuant to Article 279, on its own responsibility and within the limits of the appropriations, having regard to the principles of sound financial management. Article 48 of the new financial regulation, adopted by the Council on June 25th 2002, confirms the rule that was already stated in the previous regulation of 1977: it confirms the Commission's responsibility for budget implementation, whatever the management method adopted. Within the Commission, several actors are responsible for budget implementation: article 58 of the 2002 financial regulation indicates the two main actors in charge of budget implementation. [...]