 |
 | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
| European Union - 8th Company Law Directive DIRECTIVE 2006/43/EC (10) It is important that statutory auditors and audit firms respect the privacy of their clients. They should therefore be bound by strict rules on confidentiality and professional secrecy which, however, should not impede proper enforcement of this Directive. Those confidentiality rules should also apply to any statutory auditor or audit firm which has ceased to be involved in a specific audit task. (11) Statutory auditors and audit firms should be independent when carrying out statutory audits. They may inform the audited entity of matters arising from the audit, but should abstain from the internal decision processes of the audited entity. If they find themselves in a situation where the significance of the threats to their independence, even after application of safeguards to mitigate those threats, is too high, they should resign or abstain from the audit engagement. The conclusion that there is a relationship which compromises the auditor's independence may be different as regards the relationship between the auditor and the audited entity from that in respect of the relationship between the network and the audited entity. Where a cooperative within the meaning of Article 2(14), or a similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC, is required or permitted under national provisions to be a member of a non-profit-making auditing entity, an objective, reasonable and informed party would not conclude that the membership-based relationship compromises the statutory auditor's independence, provided that when such an auditing entity is conducting a statutory audit of one of its members, the principles of independence are applied to the auditors carrying out the audit and those persons who may be in a position to exert influence on the statutory audit. Examples of threats to the independence of a statutory auditor or audit firm are a direct or indirect financial interest in the audited entity and the provision of additional non-audit services. Also, the level of fees received from one audited entity and/or the structure of the fees can threaten the independence of a statutory auditor or audit firm. Types of safeguards to be applied to mitigate or eliminate those threats include prohibitions, restrictions, other policies and procedures, and disclosure. Statutory auditors and audit firms should refuse to undertake any additional non-audit service that compromises their independence. The Commission may adopt implementing measures on independence as minimum standards. In doing so, the Commission might take into consideration the principles contained in the abovementioned Recommendation of 16 May 2002. In order to determine the independence of auditors, the concept of a ‘network’ in which auditors operate needs to be clear. In this regard, various circumstances have to be taken into account, such as instances where a structure could be defined as a network because it is aimed at profit- or cost-sharing. The criteria for demonstrating that there is a network should be judged and weighed on the basis of all factual circumstances available, such as whether there are common usual clients. (12) In cases of self-review or self-interest, where appropriate to safeguard the statutory auditor's or audit firm's independence, it should be for the Member State rather than the statutory auditor or the audit firm to decide whether the statutory auditor or audit firm should resign or abstain from an audit engagement with regard to its audit clients. However, this should not lead to a situation where Member States have a general duty to prevent statutory auditors or audit firms from providing non audit services to their audit clients. For the purposes of determining whether it is appropriate, in cases of self interest or self-review, that a statutory auditor or audit firm should not carry out statutory audits, so as to safeguard the statutory auditor's or audit firm's independence, the factors to be taken into account should include the question whether or not the audited public interest entity has issued transferable securities admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point 14 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (1). (13) It is important to ensure consistently high quality in all statutory audits required by Community law. All statutory audits should therefore be carried out on the basis of international auditing standards. Measures implementing those standards in the Community should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (2). A technical committee or group on auditing should assist the Commission in the assessment of the technical soundness of all the international auditing standards, and should also involve the system of public oversight bodies of the Member States. In order to achieve a maximum degree of harmonisation, Member States should be allowed to impose additional national audit procedures or requirements only if these stem from specific national legal requirements relating to the scope of the statutory audit of annual or consolidated accounts, meaning that those requirements have not been covered by the adopted international auditing standards. Member States could maintain those additional audit procedures until the audit procedures or requirements have been covered by subsequently adopted international auditing standards. If, however, the adopted international auditing standards contain audit procedures the performance of which would create a specific legal conflict with national law stemming from specific national requirements related to the scope of the statutory audit, Member States may carve out the conflicting part of the international auditing standard as long as those conflicts exist, provided the measures referred to in Article 26(3) are applied. Any addition or carving out by Member States should add a high level of credibility to the annual accounts of companies and be conducive to the public good. The above implies that Member States may, for example, require an additional auditor's report to the supervisory board or prescribe other reporting and audit requirements based on national corporate governance rules. (1) OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (2) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. (14) For the Commission to adopt an international auditing standard for application in the Community, it must be generally accepted internationally and have been developed with full participation of all interested parties following an open and transparent procedure, add to the credibility and quality of annual accounts and consolidated accounts and be conducive to the European public good. The need for the adoption of an International Auditing Practice Statement as part of a standard should be assessed in accordance with Decision 1999/468/EC on a case-by-case basis. The Commission should ensure that before the start of the adoption process a review is conducted in order to verify whether those requirements have been met and report to members of the Committee set up under this Directive on the outcome of the review. (15) In the case of consolidated accounts, it is important that there be a clear definition of responsibilities as between the statutory auditors who audit components of the group. For this purpose, the group auditor should bear full responsibility for the audit report. (16) In order to increase comparability between companies applying the same accounting standards, and to enhance public confidence in the audit function, the Commission may adopt a common audit report for the audit of annual accounts or consolidated accounts prepared on the basis of approved international accounting standards, unless an appropriate standard for such a report has been adopted at Community level. (17) Regular inspections are a good means of achieving a consistently high quality in statutory audits. Statutory auditors and audit firms should therefore be subject to a system of quality assurance that is organised in a manner which is independent from the reviewed statutory auditors and audit firms. For the application of Article 29 on quality assurance systems, Member States may decide that if individual auditors have a common quality assurance policy, only the requirements for audit firms need to be considered. Member States may organise the system of quality assurance in such a manner that each individual auditor is to be subject to a quality assurance review at least every six years. In this respect, the funding for the quality assurance system should be free from undue influence. The Commission should have the competence to adopt implementing measures in matters relevant to the organisation of quality assurance systems, and in respect of its funding, in cases where public confidence in the quality assurance system is seriously compromised. The public oversight systems of Member States should be encouraged to find a coordinated approach to the carrying-out of quality assurance reviews with a view to avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on the parties concerned. (18) Investigations and appropriate penalties help to prevent and correct inadequate execution of a statutory audit. |
|
|
