EUROSAI. Magazine N21 - 2015

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION OF SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS REPORTS AND STUDIES 132 www.eurosai.org · N.º 21 - 2015 states where the regular reporting on state accounts is considered important have courts of accounts…, therefore the Principality is also badly in need of a court of accounts”. It was during the debates that the resonant phrase about the staff of the Supreme Court of Accounts was pronounced by the prominent Bulgarian statesman Stefan Stambolov: “They have to be of such character so that we all trust their honesty”. While taking its first steps, the Supreme Court of Accounts met with some difficulties. Its first report to Parliament pointed out that its staff for the first year of operation was rather limited amounting only to the president, 5 members and 1 member-judge. Neverthless, the Court prepared a report which stated that up until 1 March 1879 the state had not had a budget. Two years after the adoption of the first Act, a second act was passed in 1883, which was introduced by the then minister of finance Grigor Nachovich, political opponent of Petko Karavelov. The independence of the Court of Accounts has been violated with this law as it provided that its president and counsellors (members) be appointed and removed from office by the minister of finance instead of by parliament. At the same time, the act expanded the powers of the institution. The Court was obliged ‘to present a report to His Majesty” every year. It was for the first time that the Court had been assigned three tasks: to review not only the pecuniary accountability but the management of property by the state and the management of warehouses. The position of the prosecutor had been introduced with the chief mission of protecting the public interest. The Court was assigned judicial functions – by exercising ex post control over the annual financial and property statements of the auditees, the Court issued decrees for granting or not granting a discharge. Following the elections for the Fourth Ordinary National Assembly, Petko Karavelov returned to power as prime minister and finance minister. He continued his efforts to strengthen state control and in 1885 the third Act on the Supreme Court of Accounts was adopted and remained into effect for the next 40 years. The control was again made fully independent from the government. The president and the counsellors were appointed by decree of the Prince upon proposal of the Council of Ministers, and their removal from office was possible following a request from the Cabinet or the National Assembly but only with his decision. The Act introduced judicial powers for the institution. The Court became the second instance of appeal in regard to the decrees issued by the standing district commissions on the financial statements of the village municipalities. The functions of the Court have been extended – it took over the control over the income and expenditures of legal entities governed by public law, and the examination of the financial statements of all public charities and other organisations. The Court was obliged to carry out ex-ante control and issue permissions for all payment orders under the state budget. Thus, the ex-ante form of control had been introduced in the activity of the Supreme Court of Accounts. With such a wide range of activities, the huge volume of control tasks could not be performed The letter with which Petko Karavelov introduced the draft of the third Supreme Court of Accounts Act