Parliamentary support to the ombudsperson and the supreme audit institution (SAI)

A formal mechanism exists for handling SAI reports in the parliament, including a dedicated committee

Results are taken from the assessment in the public financial management area, sub-indicator 31.1.9. criterion 1. Review of parliamentary regulations and interviews with parliamentary administration to determine whether the process for handling supreme audit institution and ombudsperson reports is formalised, ensuring consistent approach.

A formal mechanism exists for handling reports from the ombudsperson in the parliament, including a dedicated committee

Review of parliamentary regulations and interviews with parliamentary administration to determine whether the process for handling supreme audit institution and ombudsperson reports is formalised, ensuring consistent approach.

Parliament has issued at least one written statement calling on specific government bodies to implement the recommendations of the ombudsperson

Period of the assessment year or the last year prior to the assessment year is taken into account. Review of administrative records and interviews with parliamentary administration to determine whether written statements calling on specific government bodies to implement the recommendations have been issued.

Parliament has issued at least one written statement calling on specific government bodies to implement the recommendations of the SAI

Period of the assessment year or the last year prior to the assessment year is taken into account. Review of administrative records and interviews with parliamentary administration to determine whether written statements calling on specific government bodies to implement the recommendations have been issued.

The ombudsperson annual report was presented and discussed in the parliamentary committee and plenary session no later than six months after its submission

Review of administrative records. Parliaments are asked to provide documentary evidence that both plenary and committee discussions took place. Interviews with representatives of the parliament and oversight institutions are conducted to validate this information. Two last years are analysed – consistent practice is expected; therefore points are awarded only if in both years the practice took place.

The SAI annual report was presented and discussed in the parliamentary committee and plenary session no later than six months after its submission

Review of administrative records. Parliaments are asked to provide documentary evidence that both plenary and committee discussions took place. Interviews with representatives of the parliament and oversight institutions are conducted to validate this information. Two last years are analysed – consistent practice is expected; therefore points are awarded only if in both years the practice took place.