当前位置: X-MOL 学术Utrecht Law Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Auditing Standards and the Accountability of the European Court of Auditors (ECA)
Utrecht Law Review Pub Date : 2018-02-09 , DOI: 10.18352/ulr.417
Alex Brenninkmeijer , Gaston Moonen , Raphael Debets , Branislav Hock

External auditors, both in the private and in the public sector, provide information to citizens and other stakeholders. The quality of this information – their auditing products – relies on ‘standards’. Audits are governed by accounting standards that largely concern ‘best practices’ designed by private accountants’ associations. This raises the question of how these standards fit into the regulatory framework in which an external public auditor operates, for example administrative law. So far, little research has been published on the role of standards setting out the principles underlying the European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) approach to audits and the procedures to be employed. By describing the structure of these standards and comparing them against the EU legal framework, we argue that the ECA, which is based on constitutional law and EU law, mainly follows the private-sector financial auditing standards. Private standards are designed outside EU law: How can auditing standards determined by the private sector be better aligned with administrative law to reflect the realities of public-sector compliance auditing in the framework of the ECA? For issues more exclusively covered by public-sector auditors, such as performance audits, public-sector auditors have developed standards and guidelines themselves. This paper aims to enhance our understanding of the institutional complementarity between global private regulation (i.e. accounting and auditing standards) and public regimes (such as general principles of good administration).

中文翻译:

审计标准与欧洲审计法院(ECA)的责任制

私营部门和公共部门的外部审计师均向公民和其他利益相关者提供信息。这些信息(其审核产品)的质量取决于“标准”。审计受会计标准的约束,该会计标准主要涉及私人会计师协会设计的“最佳实践”。这就提出了一个问题,即这些标准如何适应外部公共审计师运作的监管框架,例如行政法。迄今为止,关于标准在确定欧洲审计委员会(ECA)审计方法和采用的程序所依据的原理方面的作用的研究很少。通过描述这些标准的结构并将其与欧盟法律框架进行比较,我们认为基于宪法和欧盟法律的ECA,主要遵循私营部门财务审计准则。私营标准是在欧盟法律之外制定的:由私营部门确定的审计标准如何更好地与行政法保持一致,以在ECA框架内反映公共部门合规性审计的现实?对于绩效审计等公共部门审计师专门涵盖的问题,公共部门审计师自己制定了标准和指南。本文旨在增进我们对全球私人监管(即会计和审计标准)与公共体制(如良好管理的一般原则)之间的制度互补性的理解。私营部门确定的审计标准如何更好地与行政法保持一致,以在ECA框架内反映公共部门合规性审计的现实?对于绩效审计等公共部门审计师专门涵盖的问题,公共部门审计师自己制定了标准和指南。本文旨在增进我们对全球私人监管(即会计和审计标准)与公共体制(如良好管理的一般原则)之间的制度互补性的理解。私营部门确定的审计标准如何更好地与行政法保持一致,以在ECA框架内反映公共部门合规性审计的现实?对于绩效审计等公共部门审计师专门涵盖的问题,公共部门审计师自己制定了标准和指南。本文旨在增进我们对全球私人监管(即会计和审计标准)与公共体制(如良好管理的一般原则)之间的制度互补性的理解。公共部门审计员自己制定了标准和指南。本文旨在增进我们对全球私人监管(即会计和审计标准)与公共体制(如良好管理的一般原则)之间的制度互补性的理解。公共部门审计员自己制定了标准和指南。本文旨在增进我们对全球私人监管(即会计和审计标准)与公共体制(如良好管理的一般原则)之间的制度互补性的理解。
更新日期:2018-02-09
down
wechat
bug