And here I am thinking about Barroso's comments about describing the European Court of Auditors as an 'External Auditor'.
The Court itself says this,
Provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the European Court of Auditors and its activityAnd yes, lets look at the Lisbon Treaty to check,
Article 13 of the TEU states explicitly that the Court is one of the Union’s institutions.
Article 13So OK, it is indeed it is an EU institution, not an external auditor.
1. The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
The Union's institutions shall be:
- the European Parliament,
- the European Council,
- the Council,
- the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"),
- the Court of Justice of the European Union,
- the European Central Bank,
- the Court of Auditors.
Then down in article 286 we see this,
7. The Council shall determine the conditions of employment of the President and the Members of the Court of Auditors and in particular their salaries, allowances and pensions. It shall also determine any payment to be made instead of remuneration.Which suggests that an Auditor like Maarten Engwirda may well find himself deprived of his pension as it seems that his pension may well come under the same rules of future behaviour that Commissioner's themselves come under.
Also Barroso's comments that he wouldn't want to influence the Court, then admits Marta's follow up that the Commission does send requests and instructions seems to be off kilter. His suggestion that her question is of the same order of merit as a Commission statement is outrageous.
Make your mind up man, and stick to the facts.