ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITÆ OF IVANA MALETIĆ
Ivana MALETIĆ
Education:
PhD candidate, Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka (Croatia)
2012
Master of Science in Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Zagreb (Croatia)
2004 – 2006
Certified Public Sector Accountant and Auditor (two-year course), CIPFA – Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (United Kingdom)
1992 – 1997
Master of Economics and Business, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Zagreb (Croatia)
Professional experience:
July 2019 – present
Member, European Court of Auditors (Chamber IV), Luxembourg (Luxembourg)
July 2013 – June 2019
Member, European Parliament (ECON, REGI and BUDG Committee), Brussels (Belgium)
March 2012 – July 2013
President, TIM4PIN – Center for Public and Non-Profit Sector Development, Zagreb (Croatia)
February 2008 – December 2011
State Secretary, National Authorising Officer, Negotiator for Chapter 22 and Deputy Chief Negotiator, Ministry of Finance (Croatia)
May 2005 – February 2008
Assistant Minister for Budget Execution and Deputy National Authorising Officer, Ministry of Finance (Croatia)
September 2004 – May 2005
Head of National Fund Department, Ministry of Finance (Croatia)
December 1998 – September 2004
Advisor, Department for Government Accounting and Financial Reporting, Ministry of Finance (Croatia)
December 1997 – December 1998
Trainee, Department for Government Accounting and Financial Reporting, Ministry of Finance (Croatia)
Work at the European Court of Auditors:
June 2024 – present
Member to the Audit Quality Control Committee (AQCC)
October 2019 – February 2022
President and Member of the Internal Audit Committee (IAC)
December 2019 – October 2021
Member of the Digital Steering Committee (DSC)
July 2019 – March 2020
Member of the Strategic Foresight and Advisory Committee
Published reports:
Review 05/2020: How the EU took account of lessons learned from the 2008-2012 financial and sovereign debt crises
Opinion No 6/20 concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Recovery and Resilience Facility (COM(2020) 408)
Special report 07/2022: SME internationalisation instruments: A large number of support actions but not fully coherent or coordinated
Special report 15/2022: Measures to widen participation in Horizon 2020 were well designed but sustainable change will mostly depend on efforts by national authorities
Special report 21/2022: The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans: overall appropriate but implementation risks remain
Special report 23/2022: Synergies between Horizon 2020 and European Structural and Investment Funds: Not yet used to full potential
Special report 24/2022: e-Government actions targeting businesses Commission’s actions implemented, but availability of e-services still varies across the EU
Opinion 04/2022 concerning the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/241as regards REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 [2022/0164 (COD)]
Special report 26/2023: The Recovery and Resilience Facility’s performance monitoring framework: Measuring implementation progress but not sufficient to capture performance
Special report 13/2024: Absorption of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility: Progressing with delays and risks remain regarding the completion of measures and therefore the achievement of RRF objectives
Ongoing audits:
Labour market reforms in the national recovery and resilience plans. Some results, but not sufficient to address structural challenges.
Do the design and implementation of the business environment reforms in the national recovery and resilience plans address the main businesses’ needs?
RRF Review: Opportunities, challenges and risks
Have the Commission and member states put in place adequate arrangements to ensure an appropriate level of traceability and transparency of RRF funding?
Publications:
Books:
1) Maletić, I., Galinec, D., Japunčić, T., Župan, S., Five years of the Republic of Croatia in the European semester, Office of MEP Ivana Maletić, Zagreb, 2019
2) Maletić, I., Jakir Bajo, I., Stepić, D., A Guide to Good Governance in the Public and Non-Profit Sector, TIM4PIN, Zagreb, 2018
3) Maletić, I., Kosor, K., Ivanković Knežević, K., et. al., My EU Project: A Manual for the Preparation and Implementation of EU Projects, TIM4PIN, Zagreb, 2018
4) Maletić, I., Kosor, K., Copić, M., et al., EU Projects – from Idea to Realization, TIM4PIN, Zagreb, 2016
5) Maletić, I., Bešlić, B., Copić, M., Kosor, K,., Kulakowski, N., Zrinušić, N., EU Project Management, TIM4PIN, Zagreb, 2014
6) Maletić, I., et. al., Fiscal Responsibility – Completing Questionnaires, Compiling Plans and Reports, TIM4PIN, Zagreb, 2013
7) Maletić, I., Stepić, D., Jakir Bajo, I., Knežević, M., Kozina, D., Fiscal Responsibility and Financial Management, TIM4PIN, Zagreb, 2012
8) Maletić, I., Jakir-Bajo, I., Zorić, A., Fiscal Responsibility, Croatian Association of Accountants and Financial Experts, Zagreb, 2011
9) Maletić, I., Vašiček, D., Jakir-Bajo, I., et al., The Accounting of Budget and Budget Users, Croatian Association of Accountants and Financial Experts, Zagreb, 2008
10) Maletić, I., Jakir-Bajo, I., Budgetary Planning and Accounting, Centre for Accounting and Finance, Zagreb, 2003
11) Maletić, I., Lončar-Galek, D., Mencer, J., et. al., Application of the Budget Accounting Plan 2003/2004, Croatian Association of Accountants and Financial Experts, Zagreb, 2003
12) Maletić, I., Vašiček, V., Vašiček, D., Introduction to Budgetary Accounting 2002, Croatian Association of Accountants and Financial Experts, Zagreb, 2002
13) Maletić, I., Jakir-Bajo, I., Budgetary Accounting, Informator, Zagreb, 2001
14) Maletić, I., Vašiček, D., Jakir-Bajo, I., et al., Budgetary system: Accounting, Finance, Audit, Taxes, Croatian Association of Accountants and Financial Experts, Zagreb, 2000
The author of over 250 articles published in domestic journals.
A lecturer at numerous conferences, round tables and seminars in the Member States.
ANNEX 2: ANSWERS BY IVANA MALETIĆ TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire for the renewal of Members of the Court of Auditors
Performance of duties: lessons learnt and future commitments
1. What are your main achievements as a member of the ECA? What were the biggest setbacks?
I consider all the audits and opinions I have worked on to be an important contribution to the work of the EU and the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of EU actions. In particular, I would like to highlight my work on the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), where I was reporting Member of both opinions on the draft regulations as well as for several special reports, such as the reports on the Commission’s assessment of the national recovery and resilience plans, the performance monitoring framework, the absorption of RRF funds and the RRF labour market reforms. In all these opinions and reports, I emphasized the importance of good management of public funds, regardless of whether the financing is based on the reimbursement of costs or the fulfilment of set conditions. The rules of sound financial management, which imply legality and regularity of the underlying transactions as well as effectiveness and efficiency, must be at the core of every programme. In addition, transparency of public spending and accountability are the basis for building citizens’ trust in institutions not only at the EU level, but also in each member state. I am proud to have emphasized these values in the audits of the RRF and, together with my colleagues, I have never given up on insisting that the fundamental principles set out in the Financial Regulation should be respected.
One of the biggest obstacles regarding our work on the RRF was to ensure not only a coherent audit approach across audit teams and audit chambers within ECA but also consistency of our messages. In addition, the novelty of the RRF as such was a challenge, as it required everyone to get acquainted with a new and in parts still changing legal framework in a relatively short period of time. For some of our audits this resulted in the audit reports being published later than we initially planned. In addition, the limited access to information, specifically the limited access to FENIX, was an obstacle for our early RRF audits but we managed to overcome these limitations, at least to a certain degree.
In addition to my audit work I was also involved in different committees like the Internal Audit Committee or the Audit Quality Control Committee. One of my main contributions as chair of the Internal Audit Committee was for example the revision of the rules of procedure of the committee and the revision of the charter of the internal audit service. My role as Member of the Audit Quality Control Committee allows me to actively contribute to the quality of our audit reports as well as the methodology applied in our work.
2. What are the main lessons learnt in your field of competences / results achieved in your duties and audit tasks?
As stated above, the main focus of my audit work in ECA was related to the RRF. The RRF considerably differs in design and legal basis from other EU programmes and thus required us to reflect not only on our audit approach but also the way we work.
Auditing a “performance-based instrument” to some extent blurs the line between performance audits and audits on the legality and regularity of EU funding. One of my achievements was to significantly contribute to and thereby shape our work on this new instrument and ensure coherence across different tasks. In addition, from the very beginning, I had a very strategic view on the RRF audit work as it was and still is essential, that our audits, taken together, allow us to draw lessons not only for the RRF but also for future similar instruments. The performance audits that I proposed for the RRF after working on the opinion on the regulation enabled us to have a comprehensive overview of the design and functioning of this new instrument a year before the end of the program.
3. What added value could you bring to the ECA on your second term and/or particularly in the area you would be responsible for? Would you like to change your area of responsibility? What motivates you?
In my second term I would firstly like to finish my work on the RRF, in particular finalizing the ongoing and planned RRF audits, such as transparency and traceability of RRF funding, public administration, education as well as an audit related to the overall results and impact of the RRF. These audits would build on my experience in this field and would further contribute to improving the design of future similar programmes, and the link with the European Semester including the country specific recommendations.
In addition, I would like to enlarge my portfolio and get more involved in other policy areas and programs within Chamber IV, such as research and innovation, competitiveness or economic governance, strategic autonomy and economic security. This would allow me to build on the experience gained through my audits on “Synergies between Horizon 2020 and European Structural and Investment Funds” and “Measures to widen participation in Horizon 2020”.
In more general terms, I believe that, in line with ECA’s rotation policy for auditors and managers, rotation should also be considered for Members, in particular in the case of two terms of office. Consequently, I would not exclude moving to another Chamber.
4. How do you make sure to reach the planned audit objectives of an audit task? Have you ever been in the situation where you could not realize the audit task and for which reasons? How do you operate in such controversial situations?
Due to the good cooperation between the audit teams and my office, I was able to carry out all audits successfully and in line with the defined scope. Therefore, I have never been in a situation where we could not finalize an audit or not achieve the audit objectives. The only issue I did encounter was the delay of publication for some audits, due to factors outside our control like temporarily limited access to audit evidence, the complexity of the evidence provided or unavailability of key staff in member states or the Commission.
In case I ever encountered significant obstacles that would put the finalization of an audit at risk, I would try to overcome these obstacles through open and constructive communication that would allow us to find a solution together. I strongly believe that all of us, as auditors and auditees, have the same goal, which is to deliver work of high quality, and ultimately to ensure legality, effectiveness and efficiency of publicly funded programmes, including those funded by the EU. Therefore constructive communication, trying to understand different perspectives and patience are key elements for successfully resolving any controversial situation.
5. If you were reconfirmed for a second mandate and hypothetically, if you were elected Dean of a Chamber in the ECA, how would you steer the work to define its priorities? Could you give us two or three examples of areas to focus on in the future?
The Chamber is managed by all of us together – the Members of the Chamber and the director. To that extent, the role of the Dean is, with the help of the other Members of the Chamber, to take an active role in defining the priorities of our work and therefore the selection of audits.
In case I was elected as Dean of a Chamber, I would pay particular attention to an effective communication within the Chamber and Court as well as with our main stakeholders, like you, when defining audit priorities. In my view this would allow us to have a comprehensive view of the most relevant areas we should focus on in our work and to ensure that the timing or our audits maximises their added value. Furthermore, a comprehensive audit planning needs to be strategic, going beyond a short-term planning, but should also allow for flexibility, where needed.
Regarding areas to focus on (in Chamber IV) in future I would consider competitiveness, economic governance and, as a transversal topic, simplification as extremely relevant in the light of the challenges the EU is currently facing.
For competitiveness, our audits could focus on the areas of research and development and the functioning of the single market, with the aim of strengthening capacity, removing barriers and achieving synergies. This includes reflecting on possibilities for faster and simpler methods of financing research and scientific projects.
In the field of economic governance, it would be important to include audits specifically related to times of crisis, such as: transfer prices or whether the economic governance model is fit for purpose in this regard.
Furthermore, ECA’s work could potentially add considerable value in the simplification process, for example by assessing the different simplification procedures and how they could be improved.
6. If you had to manage the selection of audit tasks in view of the preparation of the ECA annual working programme, on which basis would you make your choice among the list of priorities received from the Parliament and/or the CONT committee?
What would you do if a political priority does not correspond to the ECA risk assessment of the Union’s activities?
The planning process within the ECA is very detailed and involves all auditors and managers, as well as all Members and their offices. When planning, we consider several different factors, e.g. policy risks, materiality, timing, audit coverage, the likely impact of an audit and stakeholder interest. These are also the main elements we consider when making our choice among the list of priorities received form the Parliament or CONT committee.
The selection of audit topics is primarily based on their potential added value, and therefore topics of important political and strategic interest are always taken into account, even though they may not be highest priority in terms of risk. Furthermore, I would like to note that “risk” has many dimensions and should not be reduced to materiality.
As you are well aware, the number of audit proposals is significantly higher than the number of audits we can carry out each year. Some proposals, while politically very relevant, may not come at an ideal time, e.g. as the implementation of the instrument is at an early stage. Others may not be entirely feasible due to the political or security situation in the audit area or even our audit mandate.
Maintaining our independence in defining our work programme is essential, and the limited resources inevitably mean that not all audit proposal can be considered or not be considered at that moment in time. However, input from our main stakeholders is extremely valuable to us and will always be considered. It is also important that we communicate very clearly to the stakeholders, especially the European Parliament, why some of the proposals were not included in the programme and whether or not they may be considered in the future.
Management of portfolio, working methods and deliverables
7. Producing high quality, robust and timely reports is key:
– How would you ensure that the data used in an audit are reliable and that the findings are not outdated?
– How would you improve the quality and pertinence of the recommendations?
To ensure that data used in audit are reliable it is important to know the sources and understand exactly how the data is collected, compiled and verified. While performing our audits, we always assess the accuracy and completeness of data and cross-reference it where needed, considering the source and nature of the data and the control systems in place.
I believe that the recommendations in our audit reports are in general of a high quality and pertinence. Any good recommendation is rooted in solid audit work while considering aspects of feasibility as well “value for money”. These aspects have and always will be the guiding principles for the recommendations included in my audit reports.
In general, a thorough planning, as well as timely and well targeted audits are the best way to ensure that our observations and recommendations come at the right time and have the maximum potential impact. In my view, more focussed and thereby quicker audits should therefore be considered wherever feasible.
8. The aim of the ECA’s reform is to establish a stronger accountability relationship between the audit team and the rapporteur member:
– Given your experience, do you think that the role of a member is to be more involved in the audit work?
– Would you change the way you work with an audit team? If yes, how?
I believe that the Member is ultimately responsible for the audit, its quality, relevance and objectivity. It is not possible to present the results of the audit work and advocate for the recommendations without a thorough understanding of the audited area and the observations. It is therefore essential that the Member works closely with the audit team and follows the audit work. Personally, I enjoy working with the teams, we always have constructive discussions from the selection and planning of the task to defining the audit scope and approach and finally the drafting of key messages and recommendations. I strongly believe that working together brings the best results and allows us to learn from each other.
As I have always worked closely with the audit teams, I do not intend to change this approach in the future.
9. What would be your suggestions to further improve, modernise the ECA functioning, programming and work (audit cycle)? After your first mandate, could you give us a positive aspect of the ECA working and a negative one?
In an ever faster changing environment, the duration of our audits is something we may have to reflect on. As mentioned above, shorter, more focussed audits should therefore be considered, if the audit topic allows for it.
Moreover, we should continue to encourage cooperation between audit chambers in particular on cross cutting issues such as the RRF, energy independence and security, or the now increasingly important priority defence. This cooperation across Chambers should include a flexible allocation of resources.
For me the most positive aspect of the ECA is its staff – they are highly qualified and motivated and work hard to deliver quality audit work and meaningful reports. In addition, the ECA is a very supportive environment that encourages continuous learning, improvement and progress. The fact that audits are carried out in teams, facilitates learning from each other and a culture of togetherness and collegiality.
10. Under the Treaty, the Court is required to assist Parliament in exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget in order to enhance both the public oversight of the general spending and its value for money:
– With the experience of your first term, how could the cooperation between the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) on auditing the EU budget be further improved?
In my experience, the cooperation between the ECA and the European Parliament is already very good. We have established a continuous dialogue with the Parliament, including the Parliament contributing to the selection of audit tasks and ECA Members regularly being invited to present audit reports. This cooperation is key in ensuring that we maximize the added value of our audits, in particular in the context of the discharge procedure.
While the cooperation is already very positive, we could of course always intensify or explore new ways of cooperation like joint workshops or regular briefings for the MEPs in key areas of interest. In a way, communication is essential and should always go two-way: ECA should know of the challenges the Parliament is facing and the best way ECA can support it in its work whereas the Parliament should be aware of the possibilities as well as boundaries ECA has in its work.
– Similarly, how to strengthen relations between ECA and national audit institutions?
Cooperation with the EU SAIs takes place within the framework of the Contact Committee, with day-to-day contacts are maintained through liaison officers appointed by each institution.
National SAIs are informed about our audit visits and regularly participate in these visits as observer. In addition, the ECA organises five-month internships for auditors from the SAIs of Candidate Countries.
While the cooperation with SAIs is already very positive, coordinated audit work in key areas of common interest could be encouraged to further strengthen the cooperation and increase the potential impact of our work. Exchange of staff in form of temporary secondment should also be continued to facilitate a continuous exchange of views, and future cooperation.
11. How will you support the Parliament in the achievement of the shortening of the discharge procedure? What actions can be undertaken from your side?
Cooperation and commitment of all involved institutions are needed to accelerate the processes and avoid delays. On the ECA’s side we make an effort to give priority to the Statement of Assurance and ensure timely adoption of the documents through flexibility in terms of scheduling additional Court meetings when needed. As a result, we managed to publish our last two annual report more than one month before the legal deadline.
This is complemented by a similar effort for our performance audits. I always planned my performance audits in a way that we can, in terms of content as well as time, support the discharge procedure. It is however important to note that the timing of our reports depends on several factors, some of which are outside our control.
Independence and integrity
12. What guarantees of independence are you able to give the European Parliament, and how would you make sure that any past, current or future activities you carry out could not cast doubt on the performance of your duties at the ECA?
I think that the best guarantee I can give you is my work at the ECA in which I always advocated for the respect of the basic principles of legality, regularity and sound financial management, no matter the circumstances. I believe that as independent auditors, we must always fight for the transparent use of public funds and warn of any shortcomings that are an obstacle to respecting the basic principles of sound financial management.
In addition, I will continue to fully adhere to the Code of Conduct for ECA Members. I have no business interests or external activities that could raise any doubt concerning my independence and I would never even consider an activity that may compromise the performance of my duties as ECA Member.
13. How would you deal with a major irregularity or even fraud in EU funds and/or corruption case involving persons in your Member State of origin? Were you in this situation during your current mandate?
I can repeat my reply on the same question for nomination for the first ECA mandate, since I was and will remain committed to that: I advocate a zero-tolerance towards fraud and corruption because they are extremely dangerous for any society – they destroy competition and opportunities for growth and development. It is precisely by efficient identification and elimination of corruption that we can provide the best possible assistance to our member states. Rules must be abided by and legality and regularity in using public funds is the foundation from which we should never allow any deviation.
I did not encounter any cases of fraud, irregularity of corruption during my current mandate.
14. The existence of conflict of interests can trigger a reputation risk for the ECA. How would you manage any conflict of interest?
I absolutely agree that a conflict of interest poses reputational risks for the ECA. Avoiding these conflicts is at the core of my work and in line with our Code of Conduct, I avoid any situation that is liable to give rise to a conflict of interest, or that could objectively be perceived as such.
Should such a situation arise, I would communicate the potential conflict of interest in line with the ECA’s procedures and would not accept any tasks for which a personal interest could influence the independent performance of my duties. I have so far not been in any such situation.
15. Are you involved in any legal proceedings? if so, what kind?
No, I am not involved in any legal proceedings.
16. What specific commitments are you prepared to make in terms of enhanced transparency, increased cooperation and effective follow-up to Parliament’s positions and requests for audits?
For me, transparency in the performance of public affairs and the use of public money is a fundamental principle and one of my core values, and I fully support efforts that contribute to greater transparency. Your requirements are crucial in this regard, and I have been and always will be ready to listen to you and respond to any requests you may have regarding our audit work. We have a common goal, which is to deliver results and value for money in the implementation of EU policies and programmes, and it is important that we share our knowledge and experience. I look forward to every invitation from the Parliament to present our reports, or to participate in thematic discussions and any other form of cooperation.
Other questions
17. Will you withdraw your candidacy to a renewal of mandate if Parliament’s opinion on your appointment as Member of the ECA is unfavourable?
I consider that the authority of the European Parliament which results from the democratic legitimacy of elected MEPs must be observed in full and their decisions must be applied. In accordance with that, in the event of the Parliament’s negative opinion on my appointment I will withdraw my candidacy.
18. Being appointed Member of the ECA requires full attention and dedication to the institution itself and to ensure trust for the Union among its citizens:
– What are your views on the best way to assume these professional duties?
I completely agree with you that being a Member of ECA requires full attention and dedication. For me, being an ECA Member means to be devoted and work hard. We lead by example and if we are not motivated and committed, we cannot expect that from others. In addition, we owe it to the EU citizens to perform to the best of our abilities and add value not only for the EU institutions but to them. And this is what I tried to do from the very first day and will continue to do so in future.
– What are your current personal arrangements in terms of number of days of presence in Luxembourg? Do you plan to change these arrangements?
I moved to Luxembourg, together with my family, when I joined ECA. I work and live in Luxembourg and have no intention to change this in my second mandate.
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
|
Date adopted
|
14.5.2025
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote
|
+:
–:
0:
|
22
2
4
|
|
Members present for the final vote
|
Georgios Aftias, Arno Bausemer, Gilles Boyer, José Cepeda, Olivier Chastel, Caterina Chinnici, Tamás Deutsch, Dick Erixon, Daniel Freund, Niclas Herbst, Virginie Joron, Ondřej Knotek, Kinga Kollár, Giuseppe Lupo, Marit Maij, Jacek Protas, Julien Sanchez, Jonas Sjöstedt, Cristian Terheş
|
|
Substitutes present for the final vote
|
Maria Grapini, Erik Marquardt, Karlo Ressler, Bert-Jan Ruissen
|
|
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote
|
Pablo Arias Echeverría, Francisco Assis, Sunčana Glavak, Csaba Molnár, Michal Wiezik
|