The Netherland Court of Audi works with the SAIs of other EU member states and with the European Court of Auditors in many areas. It does so by carrying out joint audits and sharing information, largely as a member of the EU Contact Committee.
Contact Committee of EU supreme audit institutions
The national SAIs in the EU and the European Court of Auditors work together in the EU Contact Committee. This platform is made up of the heads of the SAIs of the EU’s 27 member states and the president of the European Court of Auditors. It was established to promote knowledge and cooperation on EU-related themes. The Contact Committee meets once a year.
The Contact Committee publishes reports on its members’ joint audits on its website. It also publishes other communications. For instance:
- On 17 May 2021 it issued a statement to support the independence of the Audit Office of the Republic of Cyprus.
- On 22 July 2021 it published a report on audits by 11 EU SAIs on government responses to the COVID-19 crisis.
- On 11 March 2022 it published a letter calling on the members of INTOSAI (the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions) to stand up for peace and solidarity following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
- On 22 November 2023 it published a statement on the constitutional role, mandate and independence of the Supreme Audit Office of Poland.
- On 30 September 2025 it published a statement on the need to improve the external public audit of the European Investment Bank (EIB).
A variety of working groups and networks has been set up to facilitate cooperation on specific themes.
European supreme audit institutions also work together and share knowledge as members of the European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI). EUROSAI membership is wider than just the EU. It currently counts 51 SAIs across Europe. EUROSAI is distinct from the Contact Committee in that it considers more general (non-EU) issues. EUROSAI is one of the 7 regional organisations of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI).
More information:
- Website of the Contact Committee of the Supreme Audit Institutions of the European Union
- The Contact Committee’s working groups and networks
- Covid-19: General information – Report of the Contact Committee on the audits of 11 EU supreme audit institutions on government responses to the COBVID-19 crisis
- Statement by the Contact Committee on the external public audit of the EIB
- Statement by the Contact Committee in support of the Audit Office of Cyprus
- Letter from the Contact Committee calling for peace and solidarity with Ukraine
- Supreme audit institutions express concerns regarding developments in Poland – Contact Committee statement on the constitutional role, mandate and independence of the Supreme Audit Office of Poland
- International cooperation – Explanation of the Netherlands Court of Audit’s policy regarding international cooperation
- EUROSAI website
- INTOSAI website
What are the benefits of EU funding?
The European Commission sets great store in the results delivered by EU funds. It expects member states to prepare plans and set clear and measurable goals that are monitored during implementation and are subject to interim and final evaluations to determine whether intended results are achieved. Monitoring results is not a simple task. In practice, most information relates to the member states’ performance and far less on whether their performance has the desired effect.
Below, we answer the following questions:
- What results do European grants deliver in the EU?
- What do audits by other European SAIs reveal about the results of European grants?
Source: Added Value of EU Grants in the Netherlands, Netherlands Court of Audit (2022)
The EU has set regulations on how the results of projects it funds must be managed and accounted for. A series of conditions must be met before the EU releases funds to the member states. They include the preparation of problem analyses, the drafting of national plans based on the analyses, the setting of goals and indicators and rendering account for the plans and evaluating them.
This is shown schematically below. In essence the situation is the same for all EU funds.
EU regulations require the member states’ national programmes to include goals with indicators and targets. The indicators measure the achievement of results and subsequently inform accountability for the results achieved. During programme implementation, the national authorities responsible for the use of the funds periodically report to the European Commission on expenditure and the results achieved. The member states are also required to carry out an interim evaluation and a final evaluation. These evaluations, too, are sent to the Commission.
The European Commission issues an Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR) on the programmes’ results.
The ECA’s reports reveal that performance of the various programmes have been monitored in recent years but insight into effects is poor.
- On the funds mobilised from the Horizon and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the ECA reported in 2025 that the indicators were largely defined according to the SMART principle, meaning that they were specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. However, the KPIs for the 2014-2020 programmes did not sufficiently address effects (in the ECA’s words: ´results and impact´) and were limited to output indicators. The situation has improved in 2021-2027, especially in the Horizon funds.
- The ECA is of the opinion that less than half of the performance indicators for both Horizon 2020 and the CEF 2014-2020 indicate that results have been delivered or are on track. The programmes are better on track in the new period but the ECA notes that identifying the extent to which funded actions have addressed needs at EU level cannot be assessed solely on the basis of whether indicators meet their targets; this requires evaluation by the Commission once the programme has been implemented. This should be completed for the 2014-2020 period by the beginning of 2026. (ECA annual report (2025) pp. 123-136).
- For the AMIF and BMVI funds (Asylum, Migration and Border Management), the ECA reported that 2021-2027 indicators had improved as there were more result indicators instead of the mainly output indicators in 2014-2020. The ECA cannot express an opinion on the performance indicators’ progress as implementation has just started. With regard to the previous period, the ECA notes that the indicators do not necessarily show the extent to which funded actions have addressed needs; this would require separate evaluations that had not been carried out in 2024 (ECA annual report (2024), pp. 121-129).
Analysis of the reports published by national SAIs in 2020-2025 presents a mixed picture. Many SAIs audited the use of EU funds in this period but they all examined specific aspects and/or specific measures. Recent examples include:
- Austria (2024): Owing to the lack of good indicators it is not clear whether the 8-point education plan delivered the intended results;
- Czechia (2025) The Supreme Audit office of the Czech Republic is the only SAI in the EU to carry out an annual audit on the use of EU funds and the results they deliver. It states in its most recent report, ´Subsidies are not concentrated in areas of strategic national interest, but are spread over a large number of projects in a wide range of areas with low added value. The dynamics of the Czech Republic’s convergence towards the EU average has slowed down compared to some countries that joined the EU in the same year´.
More information:
- Annual Management and Performance Report of the European Commission (AMPR)
- 8-Point Plan for Digital Learning: unclear effects on pupils’ digital skills. Rechnungshof Österreich, 11 October 2024
- Report on EU Financial Management in the Czech Republic (EU report 2025), Czech Republic Supreme Audit Office, 19 November 2025