The workings of the Conciliation Body Peter BAUMANN President of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The workings of the Conciliation Body

Peter BAUMANN

President of the Conciliation Body 33rd Conference of Directors of the EU Paying Agencies DUBLIN - 2013

1

1st Conference of Directors of Paying Agencies WEXFORD, November 1996

2

Overview

• 1. Some Fundamentals
• 2. The Body’s work
• 3. Conciliation in the clearance procedure
• 4. Presentation of cases to the Body
• 5. The Body’s Procedures
• 6. On useful and less useful arguments
• 7. The results

3

• 1. The Fundamentals
• Mission: To conciliate views of COM services and

national authorities

• Neither arbitrator, nor judge
• Not competent on legal interpretation
• Independent – neither counsel, nor prosecutor
• Does not decide
• Parties not really parties – different objectives

4

• 2. The Body’s work
• Body established in 1994
• More than 560 cases received from 26 MS
• Number per Member State: 1- 102
• Number of cases increases
• Cases reflect development of CAP

5

2.1 The Body’s work - Cases by year

6 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cases 1994-2013

2013 - prevision

Cases Linear (Cases)

2.2 The Body’s work - Cases by sector

• 2002-2008
• 2008-2012

Market support Crops aid Animal RD Finacial audit SAPARD Area aid Market support RD PO Animal Financial Vineyards Cross compl.

7

• 3. Conciliation in the clearance procedure
• Conciliation: last formal step before COM decision
• Bilateral meeting: key element – clarify facts
• Conciliation not a second bilateral
• Bilateral procedure proactive – MS consider strategy
• MS: produce all relevant information
• COM services: ensure best possible basis for decision
• Discuss basis of possible calculation in bilateral
• Proper attention to conclusions of bilateral

8

• 3. Presentation of cases to the Body
• Request from Member State
• MS – what shall be conciliated?
• Not necessary to repeat decided cases
• Request defines field of conciliation

9

• 4. The Body’s procedures
• In admissible cases: hearings of services and Member

State

• One monthly session
• Body has case-file and has good insight in the case
• Hearings: concentrate on key conciliation issues
• Body: must base conclusions on solid ground
• Absence of relevant information relating to arguments

may jeopardize conciliation

10

5.1 On arguments

• Not a negotiation
• Technical, accounting questions
• Key issue: conversion of risk into correction
• Evidence of required controls
• Evidence of sanctions
• Is the risk the same for all expenses or sectors concerned

by a correction proposal?

• Evidence of other controls and documentation of reduced

risk (e.g. organic farming)

11

5.2 On arguments

• Calculated correction: solid, verifiable and

relevant basis reflecting the risk

• Discuss with services if relevant
• Calculation: indicator of level of risk?
• Action based on text in national program

approved by Commission

• Recurrence: Same measure or weakness?

Evidence of risk reducing improvements?

12

5.3 On arguments

• Difficulties in application: not proper conciliation matter
• Have due consideration to applicability and policing
• National requirements as part of control requirements
• Mitigating effect of alternative control systems
• Quality controls must be different from controlled controls
• No retroactive absolution
• Exchange of experiences between Paying Agencies?

13

6.1 The Results

2002-2008, synthesis 13-32 2008-2012, synthesis 33-39

56.9 28.4 14.7

Maintained Reduced >10% Reduced <10%

Maintained <10% 10-25% >25

14

6.2 The Results

• 1. Amount for conciliation
• 2. Final correction
• 3. Reduction
• 4. Reduction/proposed

correction

• 5. Smallest/highest reduction %
• 6. Smallest/highest amount

2.567.177.035 € 1.994.948.579 € 552.228.456 € 21,7 % 0,1 %-96,9% 96,9 % 2.275 €-100.892.420 €

15

7.1 Objectives – fewer Court cases?

Cases brought to Court – synthesis 24-33

• No. of cases

To Court

• Pct. To Court

All cases 79 31 39,2 Maintained 39 17 43,6 No basis for corr. 19 11 57,9 Reassessed 27 6 22,2

• Tecn. adjustments

15 6 40,0

16

7.2 Objectives

• Depolitisize clearance procedures
• An impartial outsider to add transparency and

assurance of quality

• Does conciliation prolong procedure?
• Common objective: ensure that Community

Funds are used as intended

17