Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Have the Czech SAO’s Audits Carried out in the Area of the State Budget Revenues Resulted in a Higher Number of Legislative Changes when Compared to the Audits in the Domain of the State Property Management ? Cover

Have the Czech SAO’s Audits Carried out in the Area of the State Budget Revenues Resulted in a Higher Number of Legislative Changes when Compared to the Audits in the Domain of the State Property Management ?

By: Jan Buček  
Open Access
|Jun 2019

References

  1. Act no. 166 / 1993 Coll., On the Supreme Audit Office, as amended.
  2. Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic: Resolution no. 39. 2006, Resolution no. 55. 2006, Resolution no. 262. 2007, Resolution no. 83, 87, 97. 2011, Resolution no. 65. 2012, Resolution no. 51. 2013, Resolution no. 177. 2013, Resolution no. 124. 2015, Resolution no. 76. 2014, Resolution no. 23. 2018, Resolution no. 148. 2015, Resolution no. 161. 2015, Resolution no. 102. 2015.
  3. González, B., A. López and R. García. 2008. “How do Supreme Audit Institutions Measure the Impact of their Work ?” Implementing Reforms in Public Sector Accounting. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Available at https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/jspui/bitstream/10316.2/32146/1/Implementing%20Reforms%20in%20Public%20Sector%20Accounting%20(2008)%20Gonzalez,%20Lopez,%20Garcia.pdf?ln=pt-pt (last accessed 20 September 2018).
  4. Government of the Czech Republic – Government decision (control action year, number and case): 1994 – 94 / 12 case 843 / 95 (without resolution), 1995 – 94 / 26 case 413 / 95 (without resolution), 1995-94 / 28 case 384 / 95 (without resolution), 1995-95 / 04 case 13 / 97 (without resolution), 1995-95 / 09 case 92 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-95 / 20 case 366 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-95 / 22 case 702 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 06 case 682 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 06 case 682 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 07 case 640 / 97 (without resolution), 1997-96 / 26 case 250 / 98 (without resolution), 1997-96 / 38 case 614 / 97 (without resolution), 1997-97 / 06 case 331 / 98 (without resolution), 1999-98 / 01 case 640 / 99 (without resolution), 1998-97 / 26 (Resolution no. 750 / 1998), 1998-97 / 35 (Resolution no. 751 / 1998), 1999-98 / 02 case 697 / 99 (without resolution), 2000-99 / 21 (Resolution no. 725 / 2000), 2001-00 / 13 (Resolution no. 183 / 2001 and 649 / 2001), 2001-00 / 25 (Resolution no. 869 / 2001), 2002-01 / 02 (Resolution no. 80 / 2002), 2002-01 / 14 (Resolution no. 336 / 2002), 2002-01 / 18 (Resolution no. 337 / 2002), 2002-01 / 29 (Resolution no. 211 / 2003), 2002-01 / 37 (Resolution no. 890 / 2002), 2002-02 / 02 (Resolution no. 151 / 2003), 2003-02 / 16 (Resolution no. 732 / 2003), 2003-02 / 21 (Resolution no. 91 / 2004), 2005-04 / 07 (Resolution no. 142 / 05), 2005-04 / 30 (Resolution no. 1183 / 05), 2005-04 / 39 (Resolution no. 1179 / 05), 2006-05 / 34 (Resolution no. 1257 / 06), 2006-05 / 19 (Resolution no. 467 / 2006 and 1327 / 2006), 2006-05 / 34 (Resolution no. 1257 / 06), 2007-06 / 27 (Resolution no. 842 / 07), 2007-07 / 07 (Resolution no. 232 / 08), 2008-08 / 04 (Resolution no. 297 / 2009), 2010-09 / 11 (Resolution no. 522 / 2010), 2011-10 / 08 (Resolution no. 303 / 2011), 2012-11 / 07 (Resolution no. 495 / 2012), 2012-12 / 01 (Resolution no. 316 / 2013), 2013-13 / 02 (Resolution no. 301 / 2014), 2013-13 / 15 (Resolution no. 300 / 2014), 2014-13 / 35 (Resolution no. 1019 / 2014), 2015-14 / 17 (Resolution no. 104 / 16), 2015-14 / 28 (Resolution no. 155 / 16), 2015-14 / 08 (Resolution no. 691 / 2015), 2016-15 / 15 (Resolution no. 770 / 2016), 2016-15 / 17 (Resolution no. 1078 / 16), 2016-15 / 33 (Resolution no. 782 / 17), 2016-15 / 39 (Resolution no. 1077 / 16), 2015-15 / 05 (Resolution no. 443 / 16), 2015-14 / 40 (Resolution no. 999 / 15), 2015-14 / 34 (Resolution no. 107 / 16), 2015-14 / 29 (Resolution no. 108 / 16), 2014-13 / 40 (Resolution no. 1018 / 14), 2013-13 / 01 (Resolution no. 7 / 14), 2013-12 / 24 (Resolution no. 654 / 13), 2013-12 / 17 (Resolution no. 651 / 13), 2013-12 / 16 (Resolution no. 649 / 13), 2012-12 / 05 (Resolution no. 183 / 13), 2011-11 / 32 (Resolution no. 227 / 12), 2011-10 / 13 (Resolution no. 474 / 11), 2016-16 / 07 (Resolution no. 462 / 17), 2016-16 / 04 (Resolution no. 236 / 17), 2015-14 / 11 (Resolution no. 998 / 15), 2014-13 / 16 (Resolution no. 411 / 14), 2013-13 / 05 (Resolution no. 302 / 14), 2013-12 / 26 (Resolution no. 770 / 13), 2012-11 / 28 (Resolution no. 828 / 12), 2012-10 / 26 (Resolution no. 821 / 12), 2011-10 / 18 (Resolution no. 225 / 12, 373 / 12), 2016-15 / 28 (Resolution no. 1084 / 16), 2015-14 / 30 (Resolution no. 772 / 16), 2012-11 / 33 (Resolution no. 890 / 12).
  5. Groenendijk, N. S. 2004. “Assessing Member States’ Management of EU Finance: An Empirical Analysis of the Annual Reports of the European Court of Auditors”, 1996 – 2001. Public Administration 82(3), 701 – 725.10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00415.x
  6. The Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts. 1977. IX INTOSAI in Lima.
  7. Lonsdale, J. 1999. “Impacts.” In C. Pollitt, C. Xavier, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul and M. Waerness (eds). Performance or Compliance ? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171 – 193.
  8. Lonsdale, J. 2000. “Developments in Value-For-Money Audit Methods: Impacts and Implications.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(1), 73 – 89.10.1177/0020852300661007
  9. National Audit Office. 2005. “State Audit in the European Union.” Available at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/State_Audit_Book.pdf (last accessed 10 December 2018).
  10. Oţetea, A., C. M. Tiţa and M. A. Ungureanu. 2015. “The Performance Impact of the Supreme Audit Institutions on National Budgets: Great Britain and Romania Case – Comparative Study.” Procedia Economics and Finance 27, 621 – 628. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115010424 (last accessed 20 November 2018).10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01042-4
  11. Pollitt, C. 2003. “Performance Audit in Western Europe: Trends and Choices.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14(1 – 2), 157 – 170.10.1006/cpac.2002.0521
  12. Pollitt, C. and H. Summa. 1997. “Reflexive Watchdogs ? How Supreme Audit Institutions Account for themselves.” Public Administration 75, 313 – 336. Available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467–9299.00063 (last accessed 5 October 2018).10.1111/14679299.00063(lastaccessed5October2018)
  13. Pollitt, C., G. Xavier, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa and M. Waerness. 1999. Performance or Compliance ? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford, Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296003.001.0001
  14. Supreme Audit Office: Annual reports from 1993. Available at https://www.nku.cz/cz/publikace-a-dokumenty/vyrocni-zprava/ (last accessed 10 January 2019), Audit reports from selected Audit actions, Information from selected Audit actions, EU reports.
  15. The World Bank. 2001. Features and functions of supreme audit institutions. PREM Notes 10 / 2001, number 59, Public Sector. Washington, DC. Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote59.pdf (last accessed 20 September 2018).
Language: English
Page range: 9 - 41
Published on: Jun 18, 2019
Published by: NISPAcee
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2019 Jan Buček, published by NISPAcee
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.