sigma · phare and sigma serve the same countries: albania, bosnia-herzegovina, bulgaria, the czech...

S IGMA – Support for Improvement in Governance andManagement in Centra l and Eastern EuropeanCountries – is a joint initiative of the OECD and the

European Union. The initiative supports public administrationreform efforts in thirteen countries in transition, and is principally financed by the EU Phare Programme. TheOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentis an intergovernmental organisation of 29 democracies withadvanced market economies. Phare provides grant financingto support its partner countries in Central and Eastern Europeto the stage where they are ready to assume the obligations ofmembership of the European Union.

Phare and SIGMA serve the same countries: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Established in 1992, SIGMA works within the OECD’sPublic Management Service, which provides information andexpert analysis on public management to policy-makers andfacilitates contact and exchange of experience amongst public sector managers. SIGMA offers beneficiary countriesaccess to a network of experienced public administrators,comparative information, and technical knowledge connectedwith the Public Management Service.

SIGMA aims to:■ assist beneficiary countries in their search for good

governance to improve administrative efficiency and promote adherence of public sector staff to democraticvalues, ethics and respect of the rule of law;

■ help build up indigenous capacities at the central governmenta l l eve l to face the chal lenges of internationalisation and of European Union integrationplans; and

■ support initiatives of the European Union and other donorsto assist beneficiary countries in public administrationreform and contribute to co-ordination of donor activities.

Throughout its work, the initiative places a high priority on facilitating co-operation among governments. This practiceincludes providing logistical support to the formation of networks of public administration practitioners in Centraland Eastern Europe, and between these practitioners andtheir counterparts in other democracies.

SIGMA works in five technical areas: Public AdministrationDevelopment Strategies; Policy-Making, Co-ordination andRegulation; Budgeting and Resource Allocation; Public ServiceManagement; Financial Control and Audit. In addition, anInformation Services Unit disseminates published and on-line materials on public management topics.

SIGMA

14-15 October 1999. Paris, France. “EU Enlargement - First andSecond Wave”, International Seminar for Experts in the GreatDebates series. Contact: Cicero Foundation, Paris, France. Tel: (33.1) 43.80.18.21; fax: (33.1) 42.67.92.04; e-mail: [email protected];http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cifo.In English.

2-3 November 1999. Istanbul, Turkey. Second Annual Meeting ofthe Anti-Corruption Network for Transition Economies,“Harnessing the Private Sector for Anti-Corruption in theTransition Economies”. Contact: Bart Édes, SIGMA. Tel: (33.1) 45.24.79.00; fax: (33.1) 45.24.13.00; e-mail: [email protected]. In English and Russian.

15-17 November 1999. Prague, Czech Republic. “Tenth SIGMALiaison Group Meeting” (and meeting of heads of civil service ofcentral and eastern European countries). Contact: Jak Jabes, SIGMA. Tel: (33.1) 45.24.13.12; fax: (33.1) 45.24.13.00; e-mail: [email protected] English and French.

15-17 November 1999. Paris/Strasbourg, France. “Introduction toEuropean Matters”, seminar for civil servants of states havingassociation agreements the EU, and who have to negotiate theirmembership, representatives of ministries involved in communityaid and diplomats in charge of European questions. Contact: International Institute of Public Administration(IIPA), 2 avenue de l’Observatoire, 75272 Paris Cedex 06,France. Tel: (33.1) 44.41.85.00; fax: (33.1.) 44. 41.85.99; e-mail: [email protected]. In French.

22-23 November 1999. Maastricht, the Netherlands. Conferenceentitled “Keep Ahead with European Information”. Contact: Joyce Groneschild, EIPA, POB 1229, 6201 BEMaastricht, The Netherlands; tel: (31.43) 329.63.57; fax: (31.43) 329.62.96; e-mail: [email protected] English.

Please note that not all of the programmes included in this calendar are open toevery public administration practitioner or the general public. Details areprovided directly by the organiser, who may be contacted for further information.If your organisation is planning an event, please send details to SIGMA (addresson page 2). A more complete calendar of events may be found at:http://www.oecd.org/puma/sigmaweb.

ON THE AGENDAUpcoming Programmes

P M FPublic Management Forum

Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) serve a vital role in promoting accountable, effectivegovernment throughout the democratic world. The statutory base of an SAI isnormally the national constitution, supplemented by a law regulating the institution’s

organisation and activities.The constitution establishesthe SAI as an independentbody, designated to controlgovernment spending andrevenue collection. Thisissue of PMF explores keyissues facing central andeastern European SAIs asthe EU accession processintensifies.

In most European countries,the supreme audit institutionreports to the national parlia-

ment, and is therefore indirectly apart of the legislature. The fact that SAI reports are received andconsidered by parliament – andnormally released to the public –makes it a very powerful institu-tion. In Central and EasternEurope, SAI powers are often supplemented with the right toissue fines or surcharges in caseswhere rules have been violated ornegligence found. In a few cases,the SAI has actual judicial powerscomparable to those of conventionalcourts.

A Bimonthly Newsletter for Public Administration Practitioners in Central and Eastern Europe

Audit Institutions Promote Accountable and Effective Government

ΣSIGMA

Vol. V - N° 5September/October 1999

Poland’s Respected

Audit Institution

Forum Focus

Supreme Audit Institutions Preparefor EU Enlargement

Peer ReviewsIdentify SAI

Development Needs

Strengthening External Audit

in Bulgaria

Warsaw's Managementof EU Affairs

Continued on page 3 �

By Kjell Larsson and Johannes Stenbaek Madsen

Imag

e B

ank/

Gar

y S.

& V

ivia

n C

hapm

an

financial audit (or regularity audit)

embraces:

a) attestation of financial

accountability of accountable

entities, involving examination and

evaluation of financial records and

expression of opinions of financial

statements;

b) attestation of financial

accountability of the government

administration as a whole;

c) audit of financial systems and

transactions including an

evaluation of compliance with

applicable statutes and

regulations;

d) audit of internal control and

internal audit functions;

e) audit of the probity and propriety

of administrative decisions taken

within the audited entity;

f) reporting of any other matters

arising from or relating to the audit

that the SAI considers should be

disclosed.

Performance audit is concerned

with the audit of economy,

efficiency and effectiveness, and

embraces:

a) audit of the economy of

administrative activities in

accordance with sound

administrative principles and

practices, and management

policies;

b) audit of the efficiency of utilisation

of human, financial and other

resources, including examination of

information systems, performance

measures and monitoring

arrangements, and procedures

followed by audited entities for

remedying identified deficiencies;

c) audit of the effectiveness of

performance in relation to the

achievement of the objectives of

the audited entity, and audit of the

actual impact of activities

compared with the intended

impact.

WHAT IS FINANCIAL AUDIT? WHAT IS PERFORMANCE AUDIT?

Σ - Public Management Forum

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

PMF is published six times a year bySIGMA, the Programme for Supportfor Improvement in Governance andManagement in Central and EasternEuropean Countries.

Views expressed herein do not neces-sarily represent the official views ofthe European Commission, OECDMember countries, or the central andeastern European countries partici-pating in the Programme.

Written submissions are welcome.Story ideas, humour and letters to theeditor should be sent to the addressbelow. The editors reserve the right toedit submissions for clarity, style, gram-mar and space on the basis of, interalia, the OECD Style Guide.

ΣHead, SIGMA Programme

Bob Bonwitt

Editor-in-ChiefBart W. Édes

Managing EditorsPamela Edwards, Belinda Hopkinson

Production AssistantFrançoise Locci

French versionIsabelle Barbot, translator

Halima Benlatrèche & Françoise Locci, revisers

DesignAIRE, Cergy, France

PrinterLes Presses de Brévannes, Limeil-Brévannes,

France

Public Management ForumSIGMA-OECD Information Services2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, FranceTel: (33.1) 45.24.79.00 - 45.24.13.76Fax: (33.1) 45.24.13.00e-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.oecd.org/puma/sigmawebISSN Number: 1024-7416Copyright OECD, 1999

Permission to reproduce or translate all or parts ofthis newsletter for non-commercial purposes isgranted free of charge provided that the source isduly mentioned as follows: “© OECD.Reproduced by permission of the OECD” andthat the author’s name and PMF volume, num-ber, and date are listed. Please send a vouchercopy of any reprinted article to SIGMA at theaddress above.

Public Management Forum is printed on recy-clable paper.

P M FP u b l i c M a n a g e m e n t Fo r u m

■ Promoting Accountable and Effective Government • Peer Review Identifies Ways to Strengthen External Audit 4• Strengthening External Audit in Bulgaria 5• Bulgarian SAI Adopts Strategic Development Plan 6• Forum Focus: Poland’s Supreme Chamber of Control:

A Watchdog for the Public Purse 8• Supreme Audit Institutions Prepare for EU Enlargement and

Work Together to Strengthen Their Operations 10• Dutch Court and SIGMA Collaborate to Provide Technical Assistance 12

■ Reporter’s Corner• Standing up for Citizens’ Rights in Poland

One of the instruments used bySIGMA to identify developmentneeds in supreme auditinstitutions is the so-called “peerreview”. Through thismechanism, senior staff (peers)from EU Member State SAIs areengaged to evaluate the positionand the functioning of an SAI inan EU candidate country. Below,Nick Treen explains the methodsused and offers some examplesof recently completed reviews.

Apeer review of a central and easternEuropean supreme audit institu-tion (SAI) begins with a request by

that institution to SIGMA. Upon receipt ofsuch a request, SIGMA proceeds to select ahandful of highly qualified practitioners fromother SAIs to participate in the peer reviewteam. Their experience and knowledge arecarefully considered in the selection process. Most experts participating in a peer reviewteam work full-time for a court of audit,which is common in Latin countries ofthe European Union, or for a nationalaudit office, more often found in northernEuropean countries. Peer review teams have

benefited from the expertise of auditors fromBritish, Danish, Dutch, French, Germanand Swedish external audit bodies, as wellas from the United States GeneralAccounting Office. To get a full picture ofthe true functioning and position of theSAI under review, SIGMA staff and recruitedexperts propose a series of interviews of SAIofficials and of selected external actors. Apeer review is generally carried out over aperiod of several weeks, during which timethe “home offices” of the participatingexperts generously make them availablefor the project.Those interviewed within the SAI usuallyinclude members of top management groupsand other managers, teams from each of themain audit departments, persons responsiblefor training, individuals engaged in the

development of methodology, and certainadministrative and support staff. The infor-mation collected during these interviewsprovides the basis for assessing the opera-tions of the audit institution and for formulating recommendations. Among the external actors who may beinterviewed during a peer review projectare officials connected with parliamentarybodies (members of parliament, chairper-sons of public accounts and budget com-mittees); central government representatives(of the chancellery, ministry of finance, lineministries); and individuals knowledgeableof the public administration in the country.

Subject Areas CoveredThe interviews typically cover the follow-ing issues, depending on the concerns andpriorities of the particular SAI: current andanticipated legal framework, competenciesand audit mandate; relationships to parlia-ment, government and local authorities; audit committee arrangements; publicaccountability; organisation and distributionof responsibilities; strategic planning andresources; audit planning; types and scope ofaudit; reporting of, and follow-up on, auditfindings; management and organisation ofactivities; evaluation of efficiency of audits;staffing; training; development of methodo-logies and audit manuals; international co-operation; and quality control procedures.The peer review team also selects a num-ber of audit files to analyse and assess theprocedures and the quality of the audits, ascompared to European audit standards,methods, and reporting practices. In addi-tion, SIGMA engages legal experts to

Peer Review Identifies Ways to Strengthen External Auditby Nick Treen

4Σ - Public Management Forum

Imag

e B

ank/

Dav

id D

e Lo

ssy.

• The SAI should propose amendments to itsexisting statutory base in order to expandits audit mandate to cover a broader rangeof public funds.

• The type of audit carried out by the SAIshould be broadened to cover the types ofaudit described and recommended by theInternational Organization of SupremeAudit Institutions (INTOSAI).

• The SAI should write (or improve) the auditmanual for its auditors.

• The SAI should agree with the parliament to institutionalise working relations with standing parliamentary committees on public finance.

WHAT THE PEERS HAVE PROPOSED

Below are examples of recommendations included in completed SIGMA peer reviews:


Bulgaria’s supreme audit institution(SAI) is now in its fifth year ofoperations and has launched adevelopment plan to bring itslegislation and practices into line withthose of the European Union. Below,the institution’s chief executive, Dr. Gueorgui Nikolov, explains theobjectives of this plan and describesco-operation with foreign partners.

Bulgaria’s National Audit Office(NAO), created in 1880, has justcelebrated the fourth anniversary

of the Act which restored its activity following a hiatus begun in 1948. Overthe past four years, the NAO has wonrecognition in Bulgaria as a competentbody for independent budgetary control.During this short period, rapid changesin society and the accelerating pace ofEuropean integration have posed newchallenges for the office.Last year, with the support of SIGMA,the NAO began elaboration of a “StrategicDevelopment Plan”. Through this planthe NAO aims to harmonise audit-relatedlegislation and practices with those of theEuropean Union through the year 2002.Drafting of the plan was not free fromtension and misunderstandings, due in

part to the “different languages’’ (literallyand in terms of audit terminology) used byNAO officials and foreign experts. Yet theoutcome has surpassed our initial hopes,and we have learned to think and worktogether.

Preparatory PhaseDuring the Plan’s preparatory phase, working groups and sub-groups wereformed to manage implementation. Twonew sections were established within theoffice, one dealing with European integration and audit of European andother international funds, and the otherresponsible for developing audit standards,elaborating methodology, and preparingaudit procedure manuals. An informationtechnology strategy was prepared, and initial steps were taken towards the establishment of a training centre.

Indeed, considerable attention was givento the training of NAO management andpersonnel during the preparatory phase.Expert lecturers came to Bulgaria from theSAIs of Austria, France, the Netherlands,Sweden and the UnitedKingdom, as well as fromthe European Commission,to conduct seminars. Topicscovered included projectmanagement, legal issues,information technologystrategy, training of person-nel, financial control in theEuropean Union, andINTOSAI standards (andthe guidelines for theirapplication). Foreign language training of NAO employees was alsoorganised.

Internal and External SupportMy colleagues and I at the NAO believethat these preparatory steps, carried outin less than half a year, have successfullylaid the groundwork for the plan’s imple-mentation. A publication describing theplan was written and two versions – one forNAO employees, and the other for externalusers – were distributed. Information

activities helped to generate supportamong auditors and other employees, andstimulated external support for the plan.Members of parliament, presidential advisors, representatives of the executivebranch of government, ambassadors of EU

Member States, academics,and the mass mediashowed interest in theplan, as did officials of SAIsin the Czech Republic,Estonia, Poland and theUkraine.I am convinced that theimplementation of this planwill be successful and thatthe objectives will be met.The Bulgarian NationalAudit Office will improveits audit practices consis-tent both with internationalprinciples and standards of

external audit, and with the way these areapplied by the European Court of Auditorsand by SAIs in EU Member States. Indeed,the plan will make a productive contribu-tion to Bulgaria’s preparation for EU membership. ■

Dr. Gueorgui Nikolov is President of Bulgaria’s National AuditOffice. He can be reached in Sofia at tel: (359.2) 980.36.90;fax: (359.2) 981.07.40. For more details on the NAO’sStrategic Development Plan, see the article beginning on page 6.

Vol. V - N°5 - September/October 1999 - 5 Σ

Strengthening External Audit in Bulgaria

“Through this plan the NAO aims to harmonise audit-related

legislation and practices with

those of the EuropeanUnion through the year 2002.”

PROMOTING ACCOUNTABLE AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT

Dr. Gueorgui Nikolov

Through the Strategic DevelopmentPlan, Bulgaria’s National Audit Office(NAO) aims to create a modern externalaudit institution complying with inter-national standards for external auditand with best European audit practice.Other key objectives include:• supporting reforms in the legal frame-

work of audit;• clarifying the division of mandate and

functions between different audit andcontrol bodies in Bulgaria;

• developing NAO policy and procedures;• enhancing competence and profes-

sional commitment of staff; and• focusing on audit of management

control and on audit for the preven-tion of fraud and corruption.

by Dr. Gueorgui Nikolov

Cou

rtes

y ph

oto

Targeted AreasThe NAO currently concentrates on legalcompliance audit of expenditures in the central government and municipal adminis-trations. This type of audit seeks to verifythat public money has been spent inaccordance with the budget and the rules ofappropriation in force. The Ministry ofFinance, with support of the World Bank,is preparing to introduce a single accounttreasury system. In order for the NAO toproperly audit the funds channelled throughthe system, the time seems right for theNAO to redirect its audit towards financialaudit in accordance with internationallyrecognised standards (see box on page 2)with special scrutiny on financial controlsystems.The plan addresses in some detail the statusand development potential of the NAOwithin five specified areas: 1) legal framework; 2) human resourcesdevelopment; 3) management and administrative capaci-ties; 4) internationalaudit standards and qual-ity; and 5) technicalimprovements (library,training room, infor-mation technology). The two areas accordedthe highest priority arehuman resources develop-ment and managementand administrativecapacities. All five areasare described in greaterdetail below. Before implementing the plan, the NAO hasbeen putting into place a system to effectivelymanage the project.Measures include improv-ing staff communicationskills and the ability tomanage and operate development projects.During the first half of 1999, SIGMAhelped the NAO set up language trainingand organised a series of substantive seminars, and foreign audit experts carriedout an assessment study of informationtechnology strategy and plans.

ImplementationThe focus of work in the five developmentareas is as follows:

Legal FrameworkThe National Audit Office Act and therelated legal and regulatory frameworkdelineating audit requirements need to be re-examined and eventually improvedto ensure compliance with the LimaDeclaration of INTOSAI, which includeskey constitutional and legal criteria forsupreme audit institutions. NAO objec-tives and mandates need to be clarified, andpreparations must be made for managementof pre-accession funds and for eventualmembership in the EU.

Human Resources DevelopmentThe first step in developing human resourceswill be to establish a training unit, whichoperates an appropriate internal trainingprogramme. The establishment of a

computer training centreis also anticipated.

Management and AdministrativeCapacitiesStrengthening manage-ment includes the intro-duction of moderntechniques for the devel-opment of strategic policy,procedures and organisa-tional solutions to opti-mise the use of resourcesand technology. A series of seminars focusing onmanagement develop-ment will be organised.SIGMA will providetechnical assistance toassist the NAO President.

International AuditStandards and QualityActivities in this area seek to promote consis-tently high quality throughout the auditprocess. This will involve adoption andregular use of common international auditstandards, including the European guide-lines for implementation of INTOSAI


Bulgarian SAI Adopts Strategic Development Planby Hans-Christian Holdt

In July 1998, the EuropeanCommission requested thatSIGMA assist Bulgaria’s NationalAudit Office (NAO) in drafting aplan to create a modern externalaudit institution complying withinternational standards forexternal audit and with bestEuropean audit practice. Engagingpractitioners from audit offices inthe Netherlands, Norway andSweden, SIGMA began work inSofia the following month. NAOPresident, Dr. Gueorgui Nikolov,embraced the project and set up adrafting group headed by KyrilloBunkov. Norwegian auditor Hans-Christian Holdt contributed toelaboration of the plan, which hedescribes below.

Through the Strategic DevelopmentPlan, Bulgaria’s National AuditOffice aims to create a modern

external audit institution complying withinternational standards for external auditand with best European audit practice.This will require support to the reform ofthe legal framework of audit; a clarificationof the responsibilities of the different controland audit bodies in Bulgaria; developingthe NAO’s policy and procedures; enhanc-ing the competence and professional commitment of staff; and giving greaterattention to audit of management control,and audit for the prevention of fraud andcorruption.

The European Commission has provideddirect funding for parts of the implemen-tation of the Plan through the year 2000,and for other parts via the SIGMA pro-gramme. It is anticipated that fundingwill be provided for the years 2001-2002to ensure successful implementation andrealisation of all of the plan’s objectives.

“The adoption of the plan’s various

elements is expected toimprove the NAO’s

functioning significantly.This should enable theaudit body to matchbest European audit

practices, and ultimatelyensure that the

Bulgarian and theEuropean taxpayer gets

the highest possiblevalue for money.”

auditing standards. Attention will be givento implementation of modern financialand management control audit. Commonstandards to be used in all audits will bedefined to conform with the NAO’sdomestic working environment. Internalrules and regulations, as well as manualsand codes of ethics and conduct for auditors,will be introduced. A comprehensive approach will be elabo-rated for the implementation of the acquiscommunautaire and for the audit of theuse of EU funds. NAO members and allstaff will be trained in these matters.

Technical ImprovementsThe NAO will take another step in thecomputerisation of the audit process.Developments in this area will benefitfrom technical assistance from other auditinstitutions. Later in 1999 the NAO willjoin the national information system beingdeveloped in Bulgaria. A computer trainingcentre will be established and equipped.

A modern library to cover the informa-tion needs of auditors and disseminate relevant information throughout theorganisation is also envisaged. The librarywill be equipped with electronic links to data banks of EU Member States and with Internet connections to relevantWeb sites, such as the SIGMA’s Web pages on audit and financial control(http://www.oecd.org/puma/sigmaweb).

Results to DateThe preparatory phase – which includedtraining on project management, humanresources management and substantiveissues, such as financial control of EUfunds and development of an informationtechnology strategy – has provided theNAO with a solid foundation for theimplementation of this plan.An implementation group and sub-groupshave been set up to ensure that the plan iscarried forward by the NAO. Each of thesub-groups is responsible for one of the above-

mentioned topics. The NAO managementand staff have demonstrated a strong commitment to the plan and have alreadytaken steps to restructure the organisation,e.g. by creating new units and changingthe set-up of internal administration.

The adoption of the plan’s various elementsis expected to improve the NAO’s function-ing significantly. This should enable theaudit body to match best European auditpractices, and ultimately ensure that theBulgarian and the European taxpayer getsthe highest possible value for money. ■

Hans-Christian Holdt is International Secretary of theNorwegian Office of the Auditor General(Riksrevisjonen). He can be reached in Oslo at tel : (47.22) 24.12.99; fax: (47.22) 24.10.05; e-mail: [email protected].



Imag

e B

ank/

Mic

haël

Mur

phy

The Polish Supreme Chamber ofControl, or NIK by its Polishacronym, dates its origins back to1919. At its creation, less than oneyear after Poland regained itssovereignty at the end of WorldWar I, the Chamber operated asan audit institution fullyindependent from thegovernment. Even undercommunism, the NIK managed tokeep a great part of itsindependence and was trusted bythe majority of the public. In the years following 1989, deepinternal reforms took place withinthe NIK. It now represents one ofthe foundations of Poland’smodern democratic state.

Legislative Grounding

It is hard to say exactly when the NIKstarted to undergo reforms aimed atbringing it up to current European

standards. The year 1994 was undoubtedlyvery important as it was then that the

Sejm, the lower chamber of the Polish parliament, passed the Act on the SupremeChamber of Control. This measure madereference to the Lima Declaration ofGuidelines on Auditing Precepts andintroduced several new issues and regula-tions. The Act, along with the PolishConstitution of 1997, set forth the dutiesof the NIK in the new political system.As an integrated part of this system, theAct confirms the NIK’s subordination tothe Sejm; guarantees its independencefrom the executive; requires the Chamberto act on a collegial basis; and describesaudit procedures. Above all, audits, at everystage, are to be performed on the basis ofa procedure of contradiction which givesthe audited bodies the right to submit their objections to the NIK’s statements,evaluations, remarks and conclusions atevery stage of audit. Further, the 1994Act established legal conditions to ensurethat the results of audits are as objective aspossible.

Members and RemitAs noted above, the NIK operates on acollegial basis. The head of the institution,the president, is appointed by Parliamentto serve a six-year term. This chief auditoris assisted by the Council of the NIK,comprising the President,who serves as chairman,three vice-presidents, adirector-general and 14members (appointed byParliament at the proposalof the President for a termof three years). The Act of 1994 designatesthe Council of the NIK asthe main decision-makingbody within the institu-tion; the Council respondsto the most serious objec-tions to NIK audits andmakes other key decisions.For example, it confirms the institution’sannual work plans. The Polish Constitutionrequires that the NIK must submit to theSejm, during the state budget debate, its opinion on the way in which the government has carried out its duties. The

Council of the NIK decides on the formu-lation of this opinion.The Act gives the NIK a wide audit remitcovering both the central government andlocal government, as well as other Stateunits and regional or municipal bodies.Private enterprises may be audited as far astheir financial duties towards the state areconcerned and also if they receive publicfunds to provide public services, or if theyare holders of public procurement contractsconcluded with either the central or localgovernment. The general operating rule is that the NIKhas the right to audit the flow of publicfunds. Last year, the Sejm altered the Acton the NIK and extended its audit remitto cover funds received under internationalagreements. In practical terms, it meansthat the NIK will be able to audit, forexample, an individual farmer’s use of EUgrants. The NIK carries out both performance and financial audits (see box on page 2describing these two types of audit accord-ing to INTOSAI auditing standards). In1998, the NIK completed 202 audits andinitiated 123. A total of 4,557 bodies wereaudited, of which 15 per cent were localgovernment entities. As required by law, theNIK presented to the public its analysis of

the implementation of thestate budget, and of statemonetary policy guidelines,as well as its activity reportfor the previous year. Theaudit of the implementa-tion of the state budget isperformed and finalisedbetween 1 March and 30 June following the closing of the precedingbudget year (the calendaryear). The NIK informs thecitizenry about the resultsof its audits, and last year,the Polish press published

over 4,500 articles concerning the NIK’sactivities.

International Co-operationAdoption of the Act of 1994 marks thebeginning of the NIK’s very intense co-

Poland’s Supreme Chamber of Control: A Watchdog for the Public Purseby Jacek Uczkiewicz


“Extensive contactswith SAIs of EUMember States

and with the ECA have encouraged

the NIK to start workon developing

a strategy for the years 2000-2005.”

Cou

rtes

y ph

oto.

Jacek Uczkiewicz

operation with the European Court ofAuditors (ECA) and with supreme auditinstitutions of central and eastern Europeancountries, especially those of Hungary andthe Czech Republic. The NIK receivestechnical support from the ECA andSIGMA, and bilaterally from the UKNational Audit Office and the SwedishNational Audit Office. As a result of these contacts, a number ofseminars concerning the problems ofEuropean integration have been held overthe past two years, and co-operation withthe ECA has intensified. NIK auditorstook part in ECA audits of the use of EUfunds in Poland. One outcome of this co-operation was the selection of NIK tochair a working group comprised of theECA and other central and easternEuropean supreme audit institutions. Thisworking group produced recommenda-tions for the proper functioning of SAIs in the context of European integration (see page 10).

Internal and External ChallengesThe EU accession process requires theNIK to give special attention to two issues:the methodology of audit (concerning mainlyfinancial audits), and the preparation of thestaff. The NIK must ensure that its auditmethods are compatible with those used byEU Member States and the European Courtof Auditors. In 1998 a methodology for auditing information system investments wasdeveloped and implemented.The other challenge facing the NIK isrelated to staffing issues. Over the years, theNIK has worked out its own code of pro-fessional ethics and has a well-trained staff.A series of seminars for auditors has beenorganised, covering the range of ongoingchanges within the Polish legal system, aswell as issues raised by European integration.Nearly 1,000 of the NIK’s 1,200 auditorsattended one or more seminars last year.However, a new curriculum giving greaterweight to financial audit must be workedout. The NIK also needs to improve its

employees’ knowledge of foreign languages. Extensive contacts with SAIs of EUMember States and with the ECA haveencouraged the NIK to start work ondeveloping a strategy for the years 2000-2005. The main issues related to Poland’smembership in the EU, and to the changesexpected in the 21st century, are beingidentified. This process will help the NIK’sCouncil to set strategic goals. Further, the NIK intends to continue to work inpartnership with the SAIs of EU MemberStates. ■

Jacek Uczkiewicz is Vice-President of the Polish SupremeChamber of Control. He can be reached in Warsaw at: tel: (48.22) 825.21.16; fax: (48.22) 825.08.58; e-mail: [email protected].


FORUM FOCUS

Continued from page 4 �

Peer Review Identifies Ways to Strengthen External Audit

judge the quality of the statutory base ofthe SAI. Among other things, legal analysescover the independence and mandate ofthe SAI, the relationship between audit lawand the constitution and other legislation,right of access to the necessary information,and public access to audit findings. Work carried out during a peer review isvery intensive and spread over a one ortwo-month period. Information gatheringtakes place through missions to the countryand in-depth communication between thesemissions via telephone, e-mail and fax. Aftercollecting information and completing adraft review, including recommendations,

the peer review team discusses its findingswith the head of the SAI and advisors.These discussions guide final revisions tothe report, which is issued only to the SAIon a confidential basis.

Past Peer ReviewsSIGMA has successfully completed a numberof these reviews. SAIs which have gonethrough the process praise its usefulnessin identifying points for development. Thestate audit offices in Estonia and Latvia, aswell as the Slovenian Court of Audit, areamong the bodies that have been the subjectof peer reviews in 1998 or 1999. The results

of the reviews have enabled these organi-sations not only to improve their auditactivities for domestic purposes, but also tobegin strengthening their operations in areasof particular relevance for European inte-gration including, eventually, membershipin the Union. ■

Nick Treen is Principal Administrator in SIGMA’s Auditand Financial Control unit. He can be reached in Parisat tel: (33.1) 45.24.83.56; fax: (33.1) 45.24.13.00; e-mail: [email protected]

Countries joining the EuropeanUnion will have to apply theacquis communautaire – existinglegislation of the EuropeanCommunity – and adhere to thepolitical and economic conditionsset forth by the CopenhagenEuropean Council. The adoptionof the acquis will affect thedistribution of power betweenMember States and theCommunity. Already, MemberStates have surrendered part oftheir sovereignty to theCommunity in a limited numberof areas (e.g. common customstariffs). Future Member Statesmust therefore preparethemselves for major changes in anumber of policy-areas (new lawsand procedures, administrativeadaptations). As these changesneed to be made beforemembership becomes a reality,candidate countries must begin toprepare themselves now.

EU Highlights Administrative Capacity

In December 1995, the MadridEuropean Council concluded that theharmonious integration into the EU

of central and eastern European applicantstates would require “an adjustment of theiradministrative structures”. More recently, inthe context of accession negotiations,European Commission officials haveemphasised that the reinforcement of theinstitutional and administrative capacityof the candidate countries is a key issue inthe preparation for enlargement. This stanceimplies that incorporating the acquis willnot be enough, and that candidates willneed to “develop the public services

required to implement the Communityrules with the same guarantee of effec-tiveness as in the Member States”.

The accession partnerships between theEU and the candidate countries includethe commitments undertaken by eachapplicant country, and cover a wide rangeof activities (including the need to establishor strengthen the external control function).Since the summits of Copenhagen, Essen,Madrid, Amsterdam and Luxembourg,administrative reform has gained importancewithin the EU’s pre-accession strategy. Infact, institution-building is recognised asthe first priority in both the pre-accessionphase and in the framework of Agenda2000.

Improving Public AuditAbout 80% of the European Union’sbudget is managed and implemented bythe Member States. To prepare to manageEU funds – both during the pre-accessionphase and upon achieving membership –central and eastern European countries(CEECs) will have to further develop theirstate institutions, including those respon-sible for conducting external audit.

In light of these developments, candidatecountries are taking steps to strengthentheir external audit systemsso they can effectivelymanage a greater volumeof higher-quality work. Inaddition to carrying outtheir current functions,candidate country SAIswill have to perform newtypes of audit, includingaudit of financial resourcesfrom EU funds and auditof the application of newrules and procedures.International co-operationcan be a valuable tool inpreparing them to take onthese new tasks.

In this context, the Lima Declaration ofGuidelines on Auditing Precepts, the INTO-SAI (International Organization of Supreme

Audit Institutions) Auditing Standards andthe European Implementing Guidelines forthe INTOSAI Auditing Standards (as wellas other international standards) areimportant references for SAIs. These ref-erences can help them to become moreproductive, and to promote accountabil-ity, responsibility and effective use of pub-lic funds in government and theadministration.

After many years of activity, the SAIs of EUMember States have built up considerableexperience that also can be of use to thecounterparts in Central and EasternEurope.

At their meeting in Warsaw in March1998, the presidents of central and easternEuropean SAIs and the European Court ofAuditors (ECA) agreed to create a workinggroup to “define main convergence criteriarequired for integration of SAIs of theCEECs within the European environment”.This working group comprises representa-tives of CEEC SAIs and the ECA, and isassisted by SIGMA experts. It quickly setabout formulating recommendations inkey areas important for the establishmentand for the proper functioning of an SAI,and especially for ensuring the competent,efficient and effective use of public

resources.

The working group hasprepared eleven recom-mendations (see box) whichwill assist SAIs in fulfillingtheir growing role in thepreparation of candidatecountries to meet the EUobligations. They will alsohelp to strengthen the SAIs as effective institu-tions capable of meetingEuropean and interna-tional practice benchmarksand enable them to helpand advise their respective

governments to achieve the same level of control as that in current EU Member States. The development of external audit should of course be

Supreme Audit Institutions Prepare for EU Enlargement... by Dirk Pauwels


“…candidate countrySAIs will have

to perform new typesof audit, including audit of financial

resources from EUfunds and audit

of the application of new rules

and procedures.”

presented to the presidents of the CEECSAIs and to the ECA for considerationduring their meeting in Prague in October1999. On the basis of the recommendations, andresponses to a detailed SIGMA question-naire (the latter is part of the final docu-ment prepared by the group), SAIs willhave at their disposal a useful tool for assess-ing and strengthening their position. ■

Dirk Pauwels works for the European Court of Auditorsand is responsible for relations with Phare, SIGMA and TACIS. He is a member of the working group set up by the ECA and the presidents of central and eastern European SAIs, and can be reached in Luxembourg at tel: (352.43) 984.52.29; fax: (352.43) 984.62.29; e-mail: [email protected]. The views expressed aboveare his own. “ECA and Supreme Audit Institutions ForgeCloser Ties” also by Dirk Pauewls, appeared on page 12 ofPMF, Volume IV, No. 4, 1998.


...and Work Together to Strengthen Their Operations

1- The supreme audit institution shouldhave a solid, stable and applicable legalbase that is laid down in the Constitutionand the laws, and complemented by regulations, rules and procedures.

2- The supreme audit institution shouldhave the functional, organisational,operational and financial independencerequired to fulfil its tasks objectivelyand effectively.

3- The supreme audit institution shouldhave the powers and means, clearlystated in the Constitution and the laws, to audit all public resources andoperations (including EU resources),regardless of whether they are reflectedin the national budget and regardless ofwho receives or manages these public resources and operations.

4- The supreme audit institution shouldundertake the full scope of governmentexternal auditing, covering both regularity and performance audits.

5- The supreme audit institution should be able to report freely and withoutrestriction on the results of its work.Reports may be submitted to parliamentand be made public.

6- The supreme audit institution shouldadapt to suit local conditions and formally adopt, promulgate and disseminate audit standards, compliantwith INTOSAI Auditing Standards, theEuropean Implementing Guidelines forINTOSAI Auditing Standards and any rel-evant public sector auditing standardsissued by IFAC and accepted for application in the EU. Audit standardsshould be applied on a consistent andreliable basis to the work of the SAI to ensure that audit work is of an acceptable quality and competence. The SAI should therefore develop auditmanuals and detailed technical guidesto help promote the practical use andachievement of the standards.

7- The supreme audit institution shouldensure that its human and financialresources are used in the most efficientway to secure effective exercise of itsmandate. To this end, SAI managementwill need to develop and institute appropriate policies and measures to help guarantee that the SAI is competently organised to deliver high-quality and effective audit work.

8- The supreme audit institution shoulddevelop its internal organisation as asupportive structure for the proper conduct of work related to the require-ments of the pre-accession period.

9- The supreme audit institution mustensure that its staff are competent, capable and committed to help guarantee that effective audit work is produced in conformity with inter-national standards and good Europeanpractices.

10- The supreme audit institution shoulddevelop the technical and professionalproficiency of its staff through educa-tion and training.

11- The supreme audit institution shouldfocus on the development of high-quality, effective management (internal)control systems in audited entities.


Recommendations for the Establishment and Proper Functioning of an SAI

initiated by the individual SAIs, and recommendations have to be considered or interpreted within the specific local environment.

The work prepared by the working groupis not an end in itself and some of the recommendations developed by the working group have already been put intopractice. The recommendations will be

Earlier this year, the NetherlandsCourt of Audit (AlgemeneRekenkamer) entered into anagreement with SIGMA to co-operate in the provision oftechnical assistance to the supremeaudit institutions of Central andEastern Europe. Below, Peter VanWingerden, Head of the Court’sCabinet, describes the aims andnature of this joint effort.

On 2 June 1999, Saskia J. Stuiveling,President of the AlgemeneRekenkamer (Netherlands Court

of Audit) and Bob Bonwitt, Head of theSIGMA Programme, signed a letter ofintent for co-operation between SIGMAand the Netherlands Court of Audit forthe delivery of technical assistance tosupreme audit institutions in central andeastern European countries. The event wasmarked by a reception at the NetherlandsDelegation to the OECD hosted by theDutch Ambassador, Egbert Jacobs.

Relevance to the Netherlands Courtof AuditThe agreement with SIGMA is significantfor the Netherlands Court of Audit for anumber of reasons. In particular, theaccord means that the Court will be able

to contribute to supporting its sister insti-tutions in the thirteen beneficiary countriesof the SIGMA Programme, which includeten EU candidate countries. In the process,of course, the Court also demonstrates itssupport for the work of both the OECDand the European Union, the two mainpartners in the joint initiative representedby the SIGMA Programme. Further, by entering into this agreement, the Court will be able to make a valuable contribution to Dutch policies supportingpublic administration reform and good governance in Central and EasternEurope. But there is another reason whythis agreement is so important to theNetherlands.

Spending Public Money Wisely Who audits the auditors? In the case ofthe Netherlands Court of Auditors, there

is an internal auditor, whose work isreviewed by the internal auditor of theMinistry of the Interior, which serves asthe Courts external auditor. At the sametime, the Court itself reviews the qualityof the work carried out by the auditors ofthe Ministry of the Interior. This situation,which has everything to do with theCourt’s independence, implies that thecourt does its utmost to offer to the publica guarantee that it follows sound operationalpractices. Therefore, the Court has to make surethat it spends public money in the mosteconomic, effective and efficient way. Bychoosing to co-operate with SIGMA inthe delivery of technical assistance, theCourt believes that its efforts to reach outand lend a hand to fellow European stateswill be made more efficiently and effectivelythan would be possible if the Court wereto act on its own. Based on its years of experience and throughits well-developed contacts in the region,SIGMA can take a broad view of develop-ments in governance across Central andEastern Europe, and can identify common,as well as specifically national, needs. Thisincludes the needs of the different SAIs.Through this agreement, all parties —SIGMA, its sponsors and beneficiarycountries, and the Dutch Court ofAuditors — will benefit from this intensifiedco-operation. ■

Peter Van Wingerden is Head of the Cabinet of theAlgemene Rekenkamer. He can be reached in The Hagueat tel: (31.70) 342.44.22; fax: (31.70) 342.44.11; e-mail: [email protected].

Dutch Court and SIGMA Collaborate to Provide Technical Assistance


By Peter Van Wingerden


Kje

ll La

rsso

n

Bob Bonwitt, Head, SIGMA, and Saskia J. Stuiveling, President of the Netherlands Court of Audit

• reviews / peer reviews for assessing thepresent position and functioning ofCEEC SAIs and for recommending areasfor action;

• training in audit standards and meth-ods, and in the management of SAIs;

• papers for SIGMA publications on issuesof high importance for SAIs;

• other activities of strategic importancefor institutional capacity-building anddevelopment.

SIGMA declares its intention to acquire afixed number of man-days of assistance(experts) from the Rekenkamer for one or several of the activities mentionedabove.

Within the framework of the co-operation agreement (letter of intent) between the Algemene Rekenkamer and SIGMA, the two parties declare that they are open to co-operate in all the activities relevant for the development of SAIs in central and eastern European countries, including:

The April 1997 Constitutiondecreed that a two-tieradministrative justice systemshould be set up in Poland. Atime period of five years wasgiven. Two years have passed,and already it is being said, andwritten, that the relevantlegislation (an initial draft hasalready been drawn up byacademics and legal specialists)should be passed by next year atthe latest. This is good news,especially as circumstances do notallow for further delay.

Poland’s Supreme AdministrativeCourt (SAC) has been supervisingprocedural correctness and citizen

rights in government offices for the lasttwenty years. It does this well (with someexceptions) and has a good reputation inlegal circles. But this Court, like the rest ofthe judiciary, is beginning to creak underthe sheer number of cases. Every year thereare a couple of thousand more customers.In 1998 there were over 62,000. As a result,cases about fundamental matters (taxes,duties, buildings) take months, sometimeseven years, to be heard.

Problems to AddressAt the end of last year, the SupremeAdministrative Court had a backlog of53,000 cases, of which almost 30,000 hadwaited in line for over six months. Thissituation is not peculiar to Poland; in manyother countries (Italy, France) backlogs of cases are also measured in years. Thepassage of time causes many cases to losetheir significance and practical value.

How does the legality of the administrativesystem appear in the light of last year’sstatistics? While it is true that overall onlyone in three cases ends positively for theplaintiff, in some regions (e.g. in the formervoivodships of Biala Podlaska, Kalisz,

Przemysl, Sieradz) as many as one in twogovernment decisions turn out to be incor-rect, wrongful or illegal. There are alsoareas (e.g. land restoration, city water systems, sale of property to foreigners)where the court overturns every secondruling made by the national or regionaladministration.

Arrogance in authority is on the increase,taking on some extreme characteristics.There are ever more complaints againstauthorities’ inaction. The authorities sayneither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’, instead remainingsilent, despite requests and pressure frominterested parties. The SAC report for lastyear cited 1,850 such cases. Pride of placein these statistics is taken by building inspec-tors, tax offices, offices deciding on expro-priation, and also (this is particularlyoutrageous) administrative offices respon-sible for elderly war veterans’ affairs. Evensending a dossier of proceedings, or aresponse to a complaint, to the SAC seemsto be too much of an imposition for theseofficials. The report lists many ministriesand important government offices that areone to four years behind in carrying outthese responsibilities.

Information about the number of decisionstaken by a department, and then howmany of these decisions led to appeals tohigher authorities, e.g. to ministers, totreasury offices to voivod-ship offices, etc, is seldomgiven, and with greatunwillingness.

The Institute for PublicAffairs, which activelyexamines the reality of lifein Poland, reported that in1997 253,000 decisionstaken at the lowest admin-istrative level were investi-gated following appeals tohigher authorities. Whatwere the main subjectareas in these appeals?Taxes and duty (40 percent) and construction(40 per cent in voivodship

offices). And how many more people aredissatisfied but do not appeal because theydo not believe in their chances of success,and how many of those who do appeallose their appeals? We do not have answersto these questions, but even that bare statisticshows that over 300,000 aggrieved indi-viduals are appealing for justice each yearto higher authorities and to the SAC[Editor’s note: this includes persons whodo not receive a decision during the yearin which they file a complaint].

Planned ReformsIn the face of all these problems, what arethe reformers proposing in their draft billconcerning the structure and jurisdictionof administrative courts? They want tocreate a dense network of regional courts(50 altogether – that’s one for every twoadministrative districts, based not in far-offWarsaw, but as near as possible to the citizen)and voivodship courts (16), supervisingthe decisions taken by ministers and bydepartment heads at the voivodship level.

The Supreme Administrative Court will ofcourse continue, but as a court of appealagainst judgements pronounced byvoivodship courts. The second innovationis that court procedures can be initiatedeven after the first negative decision froma government office, eliminating the needto exhaust the internal administrative

appeal procedure.

In 1980, the EuropeanCouncil of MinistersCommittee recommendedMember states to godown this path. Sejm(Parliament) member JanRokita, who is the directorof the public administra-tion reform programme,described the significanceand basic principlesinvolved in these reforms:“If a customer of theadministrative process isconvinced that he is rightand knows, as often hap-pens in life, that he would


REPORTER’S CORNER

Standing Up for Citizens’ Rights in Polandby Stanislaw Podemski

“The planned reforms of the administrative

justice system will putinto the hands

of the nation’s citizens a supervisory

mechanism that willenable them to pursuetheir rights in a way

that is faster, cheaperand more accessible.”


The Government of Poland set upin October 1996 aninterministerial committee to co-ordinate activities related to itsaccession to the European Union.In the following interview, PawelSamecki, Under-Secretary of Stateand Acting Secretary of theCommittee for EuropeanIntegration, comments on themanagement of EU affairs, and onthe link between state reformsand Poland's Europeanaspirations.

PMF: What are the main duties of yourpost?

Pawel Samecki: I’m Acting Secretary ofthe Committee for European Integration,which is the main governmental organresponsible for the co-ordination of internaladjustments related to Poland’s accessionto the European Union. As head of theoffice which serves as the Committee’ssecretariat, I am responsible for the opera-tions of the office and for preparing theCommittee’s activities.

PMF: Do you meet regularly with yourcounterparts from other central and easternEuropean countries and do they reportthe same problems and challenges?

PS: Not regularly, but we do meet occasion-ally to exchange opinions. These meetingsshow that we face similar problems in all ourcountries, such as a lack of awareness ofEuropean affairs among the population, orfiscal constraints affecting our preparationsfor accession to the European Union.

PMF: Popular support for EU membershiphas slipped in some candidate countries. Isthis the case with the Polish population?What role do you see for the Government ininforming the citizens about the meaning ofmembership and of negotiations? Can you tell us about the recently adoptedGovernment programme for informingthe public?

PS: In the case of Poland, public supportfor the concept of joining the EU hasdiminished from about 70% a couple ofyears ago to 54-55% nowadays. In ouropinion, this is due to the rising awarenessof both the benefits and constraints we willmeet on our way to joining the EuropeanUnion. The Government recently adopteda programme which addresses the issue ofinforming the society about the conse-quences and implications of accession. Wecall it a “neutral-positive” programme: wewould like to provide neutral information,based on facts, associated with some ele-ments of promotion. But of course wedon’t consider it to be propaganda; weassume that it will be a balanced pro-gramme combining first of all informationwith some elements promoting favourableattitudes towards the very idea of integration.

PMF: The Polish system for managingEuropean integration issues and relationswith the EU has been in place for quitesome time. What advice would you give toother countries now trying to upgrade theirsystems for managing European relations?

PS: My first piece of advice perhaps wouldbe not to develop it in the complex manner

in which we have established our system. Ithink that a simpler system is better forensuring effective performance and results.That does not mean that our system doesnot work or bring positive results; on the contrary. The second piece advice would be to improve co-operation with theParliament, by creating viable channels ofcommunication, so that messages are clearand comprehensible to both sides. Andmy third piece of advice would be to makethe system understandable to the public,so that the public can easily identify who isresponsible for what — who is to be praisedfor achievements and blamed for failures.

PMF: For nearly two years Poland has beenpreparing, pushing through Parliamentand then implementing systemic reformsof the state. How are those reforms linkedto the European aspirations of Poland?

PS: These reforms may not be directlylinked to the process of integration, but Ithink they constitute the basis for thefuture foundations of our accession. Forexample, the three giant reforms whichthe government undertook this January— social pension reform, health care insur-ance reform and territorial organisation ofthe state — are perceived as not connectedper se with integration. However, they con-stitute basic elements of the modern state.That is why I think the government was wisein making these necessary preparations. Itis now possible to tackle those issues whichare directly connected with integration, suchas the preparation of legislation for theinternal market, preparation of adjustmentsin such costly fields as environmental pro-tection, agriculture, safety and health, and soon. So those reforms have, in fact, paved theway for the activities which are now directlylinked to our accession to the EU.

PMF: Do you think that creation of the newregions will have a positive impact on Poland’sability to apply for and receive structuralfunds from the Union in the future?

PS: Definitely. I think that the regionsare now much better equipped, with com-petencies and powers which are necessary

Warsaw’s Co-ordination of EU Affairs


Pawel Samecki

Cou

rtes

y ph

oto.


for institution-building for the wholeadministration. But of course we do notreplace each ministry or office; we are simplythe liaison office for all ministries. We puttogether all individual sectoral plans, andbuild a single consolidated programmewhich is then presented to and negotiatedwith the European Commission. Later onwe carry out the procedure of tendering andselecting partners on the basis of offers thatMember States submit to sectoral ministries.Together with the sectoral ministries ourfinal objective is to obtain the technicaladvice necessary to prepare ourselves formembership. ■

Pawel Samecki is Under-Secretary of State and Acting Secretaryof the Committee for European Integration in Poland. He can be reached in Warsaw at tel: (48.22) 694.71.95;fax: (48.22) 694.71.94.

GOVERNANCE AND EU INTEGRATION

not get justice at the next level of govern-ment, then he himself should, according tothe thinking of the European ministers,be able to submit his case for immediatecourt action.” (Bulletin of the PublicAdministration Reform Programme,Public Affairs Institute, February 1999).

Five hundred administrative judges willhave to be found. Where should theycome from ? It will be necessary to createadditional full-time posts for judges.However, European Union experts, afterlooking at Poland’s administration of justicelast year, came to the conclusion that we

do not differ from other European countriesas far as numbers of judges are concerned.Reserve judges can be found within court,which is organised is an archaic way.

We don’t know very much as yet aboutthe functioning of the national or regionaladministration following the reforms thatwere introduced on 1 January of this year,and we are only just getting to know howit works on a practical, everyday level.One thing is certain. The planned reformsof the administrative justice system willput into the hands of the nation’s citizensa supervisory mechanism that will enable

them to pursue their rights in a way thatis faster, cheaper and more accessible. Sucha move is vital, particularly in the firststages of administrative restructuring andtransformation. ■

This article originally appeared in Polityka, No. 25(2198),19 June 1999. It has been translated and editedfor publishing in PMF and appears here with permission.



Standing Up for Citizens’ Rights in Poland


Warsaw’s Co-ordination of EU Affairs

to effectively absorb external financing. Thelegal framework is already in place; whatwe now need is the technical knowledge toprepare ourselves for such absorption.

PMF: On 1 July the new Law on CivilService entered into force. What effect doesthat have on the employees of your office?

PS: I hope that, as with other govern-mental bodies, it will help to stabilise theturnover of employees, which is excessivelyhigh. I think that it will be an instrumentto attract more qualified people to adminis-tration. In our office, which is perceived asan attractive employer, it will indeed beanother contribution to stability.

PMF: In mid-June of this year the PrimeMinister signed a regulation or decree thatmade it possible to reorganise the Office of

the Committee. What were the objectives ofthis reorganisation and what did it entail?

PS: Such a decree was indeed signed bythe Prime Minister. The aim of the decreewas to consolidate the internal structure ofthe organisation, as there was no need tohave a vast and fragmented bureaucracy.We reduced the number of units in theOffice from 15 to 11, and consolidatedcertain activities and tasks. Thanks to thisreorganisation the Office will be moreoperational and efficient in the future.

PMF: Finally, what is the role of theOffice of the Committee in preparing foror implementing the institution-buildingcomponent of EU assistance?

PS: We are in fact the main co-ordinator.We prepare the consolidated programme

sigma · phare and sigma serve the same countries: albania, bosnia-herzegovina, bulgaria, the czech...

Documents