A landmark occasion occurred in the European Union last week. For the first time ever, the European Court of Auditors gave a “clean bill of health” to the EU’s account. It has only taken 14 years.
Previously the Auditors had refused to endorse the accounts, although it found the accounts themselves “reliable.” This means that the European Commission had accurately recorded all transactions, assets and liabilities, but there were problems with how the money was used.
The Auditors report declared due to, “improvements that have taken place,” in accountancy standards the reservations expressed in the previously were “no longer necessary.” Still, the Auditors expressed reservations concerning spending programs accounting for 80 percent of the EU’s budget. They did stress that most of the remaining irregularities were at national level beyond the control of the Commission.
Of particular cause for concern were the EU’s structural funds. This spending on poor EU regions was 42 billion euros (US$53.5 billion) in 2007, the Auditors estimate that “at least,” 4.6 billion euros ($58.8 billion), “should not have been paid out.”
This disgraceful situation may be improving but it still leaves a great deal to be desired. Even when irregularities are proved and the money reclaimed, it is often paid back by national treasuries and not by the recipients. So the taxpayer is still being stiffed.
Popularity: 2%



Dirk Wierr
The majority of payments made by the EU in 2007 were regular, according to a report published on 10 November. But some members of the European Parliament have expressed ‘acute disappointment’ after auditors failed to sign off the EU accounts for the fourteenth consecutive year, identifying errors in two to five percent of payments made to the bloc’s member states.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/disappointment-auditors-reject-eu-accounts/article-177085
November 17, 2008 at 22:29
Tim Neale
Strange, my sources for this article was EU Observer http://euobserver.com/9/27082 and RTE http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/1110/eurozone2.html
They reported something very different!
I tried to access the original report, but the site was not responding at the time – overloaded I guess.
I will have to dig deeper into this – there would appear to be a lot of spin on this report.
November 19, 2008 at 13:04