The Supreme Audit Authority should keep the competence to check both the effectiveness and efficiency of public money spending – i.e. if public money are spent effectively and efficiently, not only the competence to check whether public funds were disbursed in compliance with legal provisions (formal compliance).
If the Supreme Audit Authority did not retain its power to check the purpose and efficiency of spending of public funds, that is whether public funds are spent meaningfully, this public authority would lose its raison d’être since the competence to check efficiency distinguishes it from other administrative authorities which control only legality.
Sources:
- Art. 9 (2) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, 14 December 2005
- Lima declaration, INTOSAI, 1977, Sections 4 and 23 (2)
- Public Money and Corruption Risks – A Comparative Analysis, Frank Bold, 2013, p. 83
- REST. Extension of supervisory powers of the Supreme Control Authority, Reconstruction of the State [online], 2013, principle 2
- Kohout, P. andcoll., Collection of texts of a working group for the fight against corruption, National Economic Government Council, June 2011, p. 84 - 85
- Vondráček, O., Havrda, M., 21 recipes – Anti-corruption cookbook, Recipe 11: Control of management of public funds, December 2013
More about methodology
Justification and sources