search
  AuditsDocumentsNewsAbout the CourtHelp
Print HomeSitemapSlovensko

Rules of Procedure of the Court of Audit


General Provisions

Article 1
(Subject of the Rules of Procedure)

This Rules of Procedure defines in detail the manner and procedure used by the Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia (hereafter referred to as the Court of Audit) in order to execute the audit responsibility. It also defines: counselling to users of public funds and public nature of work of the Court of Audit.

Article 2
(Writings of the Court of Audit)

(1) All writings by the Court of Audit must contain full name and address of the Court of Audit, number, date, signature and signet.

(2) The Court of Audit can send writings to State bodies, other users of public funds also in electronic version. In this case the Court of Audit must follow the rules that define electronic business operations and electronic signature. Writings sent in electronic version have the same status as writings sent in printed form.

Article 3
(Signet of the Court of Audit)

The Signet of the Court of Audit has a circular shape. In the middle there is coat of arms of the Republic of Slovenia, on the edge there is are words the Republic of Slovenia the Court of Audit.

Article 4
(Acts for execution of audit responsibility)

(1) The basic acts used by the Court of Audit in order to execute the audit responsibility are:
1. the demand to submit data;
2. decree about execution of the audit;
3. decree about an appeal against the decision to execute the audit;
4. decree about stopping the audit;
5. audit authorisation;
6. certificate about seizing the documents;
7. order to submit documentation;
8. draft audit report;
9. proposed audit report;
10. request for expert of the Court of Audit;
11. decree about disputable audit finding;
12. replay to the appeal against audit finding;
13. audit report;
14. summons for taking action;
15. notice for the National Assembly;
16. summons to discharge the responsible person;
17. press notice;
18. proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community.

(2) The act referred to in the point 1 from the previous paragraph is an act for pre-audit enquiry.

(3) The acts referred to in the points 2 until 13 from the first paragraph of this article are acts for execution of audit responsibility of the Court of Audit.

(4) The acts referred to in the points 14 until 18 from the first paragraph of this article are acts for execution of post audit procedures.

Article 5
(Senate decisions)

(1) Senate adopts decisions in meetings. By rule it adopts decisions in presence of all members. Without one member it may adopt decisions only in the following cases:
1. if one member is absent due to causes one cannot influence,
2. if one member is being eliminated (due to reasons referred in third paragraph of the article 17 of the Court of Audit Act).

(2) When Senate is in session in full number, it adopts decisions with majority votes unless the Rules of Procedure gives different instructions. When Senate is in session but not in full number then it adopts decisions by common consent.

(3) The Senate defines the way of its work with Rules of Procedure that is adopted by common consent when the Senate is in full number.

Article 6
(Authorised people of the Court of Audit)

Authorised people of the Court of Audit are:
1. competent Deputy President,
2. competent Supreme State Auditor,
3. competent audit executor.

Article 7
(Authorised Deputy President and Supreme State Auditor)

(1) Deputy President is authorised for audit cases for which the President authorised him/her. That applies also for Supreme State Auditor.

(2) For individual audit cases the President shall authorise the First or the Second Deputy President and one Supreme State Auditor.

(3) Responsibilities of the Deputy President and Supreme State Auditor in the audit case are defined by the this Rules of Procedure in accordance with segregation of responsibilities.

Article 8
(the meaning of some technical terms)

In the Rules of Procedure:
1. The term irregularity in business operations defines that business operations were not in accordance with regulations or instructions that must be followed by users of public funds.
2. The term inefficiency in business operations defines that business operations were uneconomical, inefficient and unsuccessful (non-expedience is uneconomical, inefficient and unsuccessful operation).
3. The term correction assurance defines measures that are put in place by user of public funds in order to remedy irregularities in past business operations or in order to reduce risks in future business operations.
4. The term audit finding defines group of found and assessed statements about a part of auditee’s business operations.


Execution of the Audit Responsibility

Article 9
(Work programme for execution of audit responsibility)

(1) Before the current calendar year is over the President shall define the Audit Programme for the Court of Audit for the next calendar year. During the year the Audit Programme can be changed.

(2) Supreme State Auditor shall submit the proposals for the audits on the audit areas he/she is responsible for to the President. Supreme State Auditor shall submit more audit proposals to enable selection of them for the Audit Programme referred to in the previous paragraph.

(3) In the Audit proposal the audit shall be defined and justified, there shall be also an outline plan for execution attached. The content of the audit proposal shall be defined in detail in guideline issued by the President.

(4) When preparing audit proposals, it must be considered: the responsibilities of the Court of Audit referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Article 25 of the Court of Audit Act, the responsibilities of the Court of Audit referred to in the Public Finance Act, the responsibilities referred to in other Acts and audit priorities or audit strategies defined by the President.

(5) If the President is of opinion that the audit proposals did not include responsibilities, priorities or strategies referred to in the previous paragraph, the President can demand additional proposals from the Supreme State Auditors.

(6) The President can demand from the Supreme State Auditors to prepare outline plan for a specific audit (audit on President’s demand).

(7) The Deputy Presidents present their opinion on audit proposals submitted by Supreme State Auditors and they can give their own audit proposals.

(8) The President selects, among presented proposals, audit proposals for Annual Programme of the Court of Audit.


Pre-Audit Inquiry

Article 10
(Demand to submit data)

(1) Authorised Supreme State Auditors can issue, before the beginning of the audit, the Demand to submit data that are necessary for planning or execution of the audit.

(2) The Demand to submit data includes:
1. name and address of the user of public funds,
2. list of data, documents to be submitted,
3. deadline for delivery of data,
4. notice that the responsible person is fined if the recipient of the demand to submit data does not fulfil the demand on time (first paragraph of Article 38 of the Court of Audit Act).

(3) The Authorised Supreme State Auditor can acquire data needed for audit planning also by carrying out the inquiry at the user of public funds on his own or by authorising somebody else.


Audit Procedure

Article 11
(Decree about execution of the audit)

(1) The audit procedures begin with the Decree about the execution of the audit. It is issued by authorised Supreme State Auditor on the basis of the Audit Programme of the Court of Audit.

(2) The Decree about execution of the audit includes :
1. Name and address of the auditee, if the audit will be executed in more than one location or more than one auditee then all addresses should be stated,
2. audit objectives,
3. date of the beginning of the execution of the audit and possible/approximate time needed for the audit ( duration),
4. legal notice about possibilities for objections against the Decree about the execution of the audit.

(3) The general objectives are:
1. to issue opinion about act on business operations
2. to issue opinion about regularity of business operations
3. to issue opinion about efficiency, economy and effectiveness.

(4) From the statement in the Decree about execution of the audit it must be clear which period of business operations is included in the audit.

(5) If the audit objectives or one of the objectives is to issue opinion about the act on business operations then in the Decree about the execution of the audit it must be stated which act about business operations will be audited: act about the past or act about planned business operations of the user of public funds; act that is defined by law or a special financial statement or special report that must be written by user of public funds on the request of Court of Audit.
(6) The data referred to under point 3 from paragraph 3 of this Article are not obligatory; in the Decree about execution of the audit it can be stated that the objective is to issue an opinion about performance.

(7) During the audit procedure the authorised Supreme State Auditor can issue amendments to the Decree but only after the Audit Programme is amended.

Article 12
(Appeal against the decree about execution of the audit)

(1) It is possible to appeal against the decree about the execution of the audit. The deadline for the appeal is 8 days from the day following the day it was delivered to the auditee.

(2) The appeal must include
a. the title of the decree about the execution of the audit against which the auditee is appealing
b. reasons for the appeal

(3) The appeal against the execution of the audit may stop the execution of the audit for some time.

Article 13
(decree about an appeal against the decision to execute the audit)

(1) The senate will decide upon the decree about an appeal against the decision to execute the audit; it may be accepted, rejected or refuse.

(2) The objection is refused if: the non authorised person issued it , it was issued too late, in the objection there was no reason or if the appeal is not against audit authority of the Court of Audit.

(3) The objection is rejected if: there is no doubt that the appealed document was issued for user of public funds in accordance with Court of Audit Act or for a body who is audited by the Court of Audit in the same way as users of public funds; and if there is no doubt that audit objectives stated in the appealed decree are in line with audit responsibility of the Court of Audit.

(4) Decree about the appeal must be delivered to the auditee and it must contain
a. Name and address of the person appealing
b. Title of the decree which is being appealed
c. Decision
d. Explanation
e. Legal notice which says that the appeal against the decree about rejection of the appeal is not possible ( cannot appeal again).

Article 14
(decree about stopping the audit)

(1) If the appeal against the decision to execute the audit is substantiated then the senate can stop the audit with a decree.

(2) Senate can also during the audit procedure adopt the decree about stopping the audit if the audit is not within Court of Audit responsibility.

(3) After the decree about stopping the audit is issued, the recipient of the decree about execution of the audit has no longer the status of auditee.

Article 15
(audit authorisation)

(1) Authorised Supreme State Auditor issues audit authorisation to define authorised audit executor.

(2) Authorised Audit Executors shall obtain adequate and sufficient data to issue opinion that is the audit objective.

(3) In order to obtain data referred in the previous paragraph the authorised audit executors shall deliver the request for review of the accountancy or business system or some sub systems, request for review of bookkeeping records and other documents about business operations, request for explanations and for access to other sources about auditee’s operations. The requests can be in writing or oral.

Article 16
(certificate about seizing the documents)

If the authorised audit executor believes that the circumstances referred in paragraph 7 of Article 27 of the Court of Audit Act are present, he may seize the documents and issue certificate about seizing the documents.

Article 17
(order to submit documentation)

(1) If the Supreme State Auditor, on the basis of evidence presented by authorised audit executors, believes that the auditee does not respond to requests referred to the paragraph 3 of the Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure or that the auditee does not respond suitably, the Supreme State Auditor issues order to submit documentation and amendments to the order to submit documentation.

(2) Order to submit documentation and amendments to the order to submit documentation consist of:
1. name and address of the auditee,
2. list of records and other documents about business operations to be submitted to the Court of Audit,
3. deadline to submit the documentation,
4. notice that the responsible person is fined if the auditee does not submit the documents listed in the order or in the amendments to the order (second paragraph of the Article 38 of the Court of Audit Act) in due time.

Article 18
(Management Letter)

(1) In accordance with audit standards used by the Court of Audit for execution of audits, the authorised Supreme State Auditor can issue Management Letter. It is issued in agreement with authorised Deputy President.

(2) If the authorised Supreme State Auditor and authorised Deputy President are not able to find an agreement about content of the Management Letter, the President adopts a decision about the content.

(3) The Management Letter consists of:
1. title of the referred audit,
2. presentation of internal control weaknesses and other weaknesses in business operations that were disclosed,
3. possible recommendations to the auditee.

(4) The Management Letter is by rule issued before the Draft Audit Report or at the same time as the Draft Audit Report.

(5) In the Management Letter the manager or management board are requested to give an answer that will present measures put in place due to weaknesses described in the Management Letter.

(6) If the Management Letter was issued but there was no request to give an answer or if there was request to give an answer, but the answer was not delivered to the Court of Audit before the Audit Report was issued, or if the answer was delivered to the Court of Audit before the Audit Report was issued but the answer is not satisfactory, it could be demanded from the auditee to describe remedying measures adopted, due to weaknesses presented in the Management letter, in the response report.

Article 19
(Audit Report)

(1) Audit Report consists of:
1. data about the audit (number, reasons for the audit, objectives),
2. data about the auditee, the responsible person during the audit, the responsible person during the period which is audited,
3. audit findings,
4. opinion about auditee’s business operations,
5. possible recommendations,
6. finding that response report is not needed, if it is needed the deadline for submitting the response report shall be stated, the demands what the response report shall include (paragraph 2 of the Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure) and notice that the responsible person shall be fined if the user of public funds does not deliver response report that was confirmed by the responsible person (paragraph 3 of the Article 38 of the Court of Audit Act) to the Court of Audit in due time.

(2) If the audit took place at more than one auditee, one Audit Report is issued, and it follows provisions from the previous paragraph.

(3) The content of the Audit Report is defined in detail by the guideline on reporting that is issued by the president.

Article 20
(audit process from preparation of draft audit report until issuing audit report)

Audit process from preparation of draft audit report until issuing audit report consists of the following activities:
1. the auditee is delivered draft audit report; if the audit took place at more than one auditee, each auditee receives appropriate part of the draft audit report;
2. when the draft audit report is delivered to auditee also an invitation to clearance meeting is delivered to auditee; there may be more than one clearance meeting; the first one shall take place not sooner than 8 days and the last one not later than 30 days after the audited entity has been handed over the draft audit report;
3. after the last clearance meeting or after written notice by the auditee that they do not object to any audit findings in the draft audit report, the proposed audit report is delivered to the auditee.
4. The auditee may file an objection against audit findings stated in proposed audit report,
5. An objection against the audit finding can be filed also by responsible person of the auditee in function in the audited period (hereafter referred as previous responsible person);
6. The President of the Court of Audit can decide to obtain an opinion of expert of the Court of Audit about a part or about the whole proposed audit report,
7. If there is an objection against audit findings or if expert’s opinion expresses doubt in professional judgement referred to audit findings then the audit finding is considered disputable; senate decides about disputable audit findings.

Article 21
(issuing draft audit report)

(1) Draft Audit Report is issued by authorised Supreme State Auditor in agreement with authorised Deputy President.

(2) If authorised Deputy President and authorised Supreme State Auditor do not reach an agreement about draft audit report, the President makes a decision about disputable parts of the draft audit report.

Article 22
(purpose of the clearance meeting)

(1) At the clearance meetings the disagreements with the auditee should be cleared.
(2) At the clearance meetings the representative of the auditee presents explanations to each audit finding referred in draft audit report. The explanations can be included in the proposed audit report.

Article 23
(invitation to clearance meeting)

(1) The invitation to clearance meeting is sent by authorised Supreme State Auditor to the auditee and to authorised Deputy President.

(2) The invitation to clearance meeting consists of:
1. the purpose of the meeting and the title of the audit the meeting is referred to;
2. date, hour and place of the meeting;
3. Name of the leader of clearance meeting;
4. explanation that at the clearance meeting the auditee can object to audit findings and give explanations to audit findings;
5. explanation that the clearance meeting is not taking place if the auditee in 8 days after the invitation and draft audit report was delivered to the auditee, answers in writing that they do not object to any audit findings stated in draft audit report;
6. notice that representative or authorised person of the auditee (hereinafter referred to as representative of the auditee) must be present at the meeting;
7. notice to explain what are the consequences of absence of representative of the auditee from the meeting (paragraph 6 of Article 28 of the Court of Audit Act).

Article 24
(managing and attending clearance meetings)


(1) The clearance meetings are by rule conducted by authorised Supreme State Auditor. The President can authorise another person to conduct the meeting.

(2) Authorised Deputy President or his/her representative can attend the clearance meeting.

(3) If the representative of the auditee did not attend the clearance meeting, then the representative can justify his/her absence in 3 days after the day of the meeting that he/she did not attend.

(4) If the leader of the clearance meeting believes that the representative’s reasons for absence are justified, the leader of the meeting arranges another clearance meeting.

(5) If the leader of the clearance meeting ascertains that the representative of the auditee missed the deadline for filing explanations of absence or that the representative did not presented appropriate evidence to substantiate the absence, the leader notifies him/her thereof and points out the consequences in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Article 28 of the Court of Audit Act.

Article 25
(minutes of the clearance meeting)

(1) At the clearance meeting minutes of the meeting must be kept. Minutes of the meeting consist of:
1. Date, hour and place of the meeting;
2. Names of those present and those invited that are absent;
3. List of objected audit findings;
4. Explanations about audit findings by the representative of the auditee;
5. List of audit findings where the disagreements were not cleared;
6. List of documents presented by the representative of the auditee;
7. Date, hour and place of the next meeting if it is needed.

(2) Minutes of the meeting are signed by leader of the clearance meeting, representative of the auditee and keeper of the minutes.

Article 26
(issuing proposed audit report)

(1) Proposed audit report is issued by authorised Supreme State Auditor in agreement with authorised Deputy President unless there are circumstances present referred in the paragraph 3 of this Article.

(2) If the authorised Supreme State Auditor and authorised Deputy President do not reach an agreement about proposed audit report, the President makes a decision about disputable parts of proposed audit report.

(3) If the Court of Audit receives a written notice from the auditee that none of the audit findings are disputable, the proposed audit report is issued by authorised Deputy President.

(4) In the case referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article the proposed audit report must be issued in 15 days after the day of the last clearance meeting. In the case referred to in the previous paragraph the proposed audit report must be issued in 10 days from the day of receiving the auditee’s notice.

(5) The proposed audit report is delivered to the auditee and previous responsible person. It is also delivered to the members of the Senate.

Article 27
(appeal against audit findings)

(1) The auditee and previous responsible person can file an appeal against audit findings stated in proposed audit report. It is filed at the Court of Audit. The deadline for an appeal is 8 days, separately counted for auditee and for previous responsible person, after the day of delivery of proposed audit report.

(2) The appeal against audit finding consists of:
1. title of the proposed audit report that contains disputable audit finding,
2. the audit finding that is being objected to,
3. reasons for the objection.

(3) If previous responsible person files an appeal against audit finding, the authorised Deputy President delivers the appeal to the auditee and demands that he / she in 8 days after the day of delivery of the appeal prepares answer to the previous responsible person’s appeal and delivers it to the Court of Audit.

Article 28
(request for expert of the Court of Audit)

(1) Request for expert of the Court of Audit (hereafter referred as request for expert)is issued by the President.

(2) Request for expert can be:
1. request for an opinion about audit findings presented in proposed audit report;
2. request for an opinion about a question that appears in the audit process before the proposed audit report is issued.

(3) The President can issue requests for opinions about one issue to more than one expert at the same time and in one audit stage he can issue more requests to one expert.

(4) The request from the first point of the paragraph 2 of this Article can be proposed by the Deputy President who was not authorised for issuing proposed audit report.

(5) The request from the first point of paragraph 2 of this Article must be delivered to other two members of senate.

(6) The request from the second point of paragraph 2 of this Article can be proposed by the authorised Deputy President and authorised Supreme State Auditor.

(7) The request from the second point of paragraph 2 of this Article must be delivered to the authorised Deputy President and authorised Supreme State Auditor.

(8) Expert can present his/her opinion in writing or orally and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

(9) The request consists of:
1. Name of the expert,
2. The subject of expert’s opinion (what is the subject: audit findings presented in proposed audit report or other issues related to audit process),
3. Instructions to the expert about the way the opinion should be presented (orally or in written form) and if he/she is asked to give opinion about audit finding, it must be expressed in such a way that there is no doubt whether he/she agrees or disagrees with audit findings.
4. Deadline until when the opinion should be presented,
5. Costs that the Court of Audit is willing and able to cover for expert’s work, explanation that the Court of Audit will cover all expenses incurred during expert work and notice that the Court of Audit can refuse to pay for incurred costs if the expert’s opinion is not issued in due time.
6. Additional explanation that the Court of Audit is responsible for audit findings also in cases when the findings are based on expert’s opinion; that the Court of Audit has the right to use expert’s name and opinion publicly.

(10) The payment for expert work can contain from 1 to 15 ‘accounting units’, by ‘accounting unit’ it is expressed amount that is the basis for pay for employees of the Court of Audit. The amount depends on time needed for forming an opinion.

(11) Senate can increase the upper limit of payment referred in the previous paragraph by issuing a decree, but only for 5 ‘accounting units’.

Article 29
(decree about disputable audit finding)

(1) In reference to disputable audit findings the senate can adopt one of the following decisions:
1. disputable finding is excluded from the audit report,
2. disputable finding is included in the audit report without changes,
3. disputable finding is included in the audit report in the form that is decided upon by the senate.

(2) The senate will adopt the decision referred to in point 1 of the previous paragraph only in the following cases:
1. if the auditee’s objection or objection of the previous responsible person is substantiated;
2. if the senate agrees with expert’s opinion that expresses doubt in audit finding.

(3) The senate must adopt a decision about objected audit finding in 15 days after the day of receiving the objection against the audit finding or in 15 days after the day of receiving the final objection if the objection was filed by auditee and previous responsible person.

(4) The audit finding that was not objected to by the auditee, but it is according to the expert’s opinion questionable, the senate decides in 8 days from the day of receiving the opinion where the expert expressed his/her doubt in regularity of audit finding. In cases when the expert presents his/her opinion orally, the senate adopts a decision on the meeting when the expert presents his/her opinion; if that is not possible the senate adopts the decision in 3 days after the meeting at which the expert presented his/her opinion.

(5) If the expert’s opinion about audit findings is not submitted in due time, it is not taken into consideration; the senate confirms that by issuing a decree. The expert’s opinion about audit findings that is objected to is not timely if it is not in accordance with time-limits defined in the third paragraph of this Article. Expert’s opinion about audit finding that is not objected to is not timely if it is not submitted 30 days after the proposed audit report is issued.

Article 30
(replay to the appeal against audit finding)

(1) If the auditee objected against audit finding, he receives in addition to audit report also replay to the appeal against audit finding. The replay to the appeal is defined by senate. The same procedure is valid for previous responsible person.

(2) Replay to the appeal against audit finding consists of:
1. notice that the senate rejected the appeal or that the senate accepted the appeal;
2. explanation how the senate considered the appeal when evaluating objected findings;
3. legal notice that appeal against the replay to the appeal against audit finding is not possible.

Article 31
(additional assessment of disputable audit finding by senate)

(1) Until the amendments are incorporated into the audit report, each member of senate can propose in writing additional revotation of audit findings.

(2) The proposal for additional revotation / assessment can postpone the delivery of audit report and replay to the appeal against audit finding.

(3) If the proposal for revotation is submitted, the President convenes the senate. The senate makes a decision about the proposed revotation, if it is accepted, the senate votes about the disputable audit finding. If that is not possible, the voting is postponed but not for more than 3 days.

Article 32
(audit report)

(1) Audit report is issued by the President.

(2) Before the audit report is issued the editing is carried out by editorial board nominated by the President.

(3) Audit findings that were not presented in draft audit report or in proposed audit report must not be stated in the audit report.

Article 33
(decree about correction of errors)

(1) If it is found out after the audit report was issued, that there are errors in the text: misspellings of names or numbers, miscalculations and other errors, the President issues a decree about correction of errors.

(2) Decree about correction of errors is included at the end of the original and the copy of decree about correction of errors is delivered to all bodies that received audit report.

(3) If the user of public funds that was delivered audit report should issue response report and if the decree about correction of errors is for the auditee unfavourable, the deadline for issuing response report begins the next day after the decree about correction of errors was delivered to the auditee.

Article 34
(violations and legal offences)

(1) If the authorised audit executor, Supreme State Auditor and authorised Deputy President believe that the auditee committed violation or legal offence, they notify thereof the President and submit all evidence for their opinion without delay.

(2) If the President estimates that the evidence referred in the previous paragraph represent the basis for a founded suspicion that the auditee committed violation or legal offence, he issues proposal for introduction of the legal procedure because of offence or issues legal charge.

(3) Authorised audit executor, Supreme State Auditor and authorised Deputy President must constantly pay attention to the activities referred in the paragraph 1 of this Article.


Post Audit Procedure

Article 35
(response report)


(1) If there were revealed irregularities and inefficiencies in business operations of public funds users and if during the field work they were not amended, the users of public funds must submit response report to the Court of Audit.

(2) The response report contains:
1. title of the audit,
2. short description of irregularities and inefficiencies in business operations that were revealed,
3. presentation of remedies undertaken.

(3) The response report is confirmed by responsible person of the public funds user by signature and signet.

Article 36
(test over credibility of response report)

(1) Test over credibility of response report is a test whether the statements about remedial actions of public fund users are true.

(2) In 8 days after the response report was delivered to the Court of Audit, the authorised Supreme State Auditor presents to the President written assessment of the credibility of the response report. It should be in agreement with authorised Deputy President.

(3) If authorised Deputy President and authorised Supreme State Auditor cannot reach the agreement about credibility of the response report, each presents his / her assessment in writing.

(4) Immediately after the President receives assessments referred to in the second paragraph of this Article or in the previous paragraph, he decides whether to audit the response report or not.

(5) The audit of the response report is carried out in the same way as other audits. The objective of the audit is to obtain relevant and sufficient evidence to express opinion about credibility of response report.

(6) If the response report was not audited or if the response report was audited but sufficient evidence were not obtained for expressing opinion about non credibility of the response report, in such cases the response report is considered credible.

(7) If the audit of the response report was carried out and sufficient evidence were obtained to express opinion about non credibility of response report, the President shall file a charge against responsible person of the user of public funds due to a suspicion that he/she committed a criminal offence when approving response report.

Article 37
(violation of the obligation of operational efficiency)

(1) Violation of the obligation of operational efficiency is evident in the following cases:
1. if the response report does not present adequate remedial measures,
2. if the response report issued by user of public funds is not credible,
3. if the user of public funds who should issue response report, does not do so even in 15 days after the time-limits for delivery of the response report expired.

(2) If in the post-audit procedures the material irregularities and inefficiencies in business operations of public funds user are dealt with, then in cases referred to in the previous paragraph severe violation of the operational efficiency is committed.

Article 38
(Post Audit Report)

(1) If the response report is credible, the authorised Supreme State Auditor in agreement with authorised Deputy President presents to the President Post Audit Report in order to be approved. It is issued in 15 days after the President sends written notice that the response report is not going to be audited or in 15 days after the report about audit of response report is issued.

(2) If the authorised Deputy President and the authorised Supreme State Auditor do not reach an agreement about Post Audit Report, the President decides about disputable issues in the Post Audit Report.

(3) Post Audit Report consists of:
1. title of the audit referring to,
2. short description of irregularities and inefficiencies in business operations of user of public funds that reveal violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
3. assessment of irregularities and inefficiencies referred to in the previous point,
4. summary of remedial measures presented in the response report,
5. opinion whether the remedial measures presented in the response report are adequate,
6. conclusion whether violation or severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency was committed.

(4) Post Audit Report is delivered to the user of public funds to whom it is referred.

Article 39
(summons for taking action)

(1) If user of public funds violates the obligation of operational efficiency, the President can issue summons for taking action. It is issued to a body that can in the limits of its responsibilities take actions against the user of public funds that violates the obligation of operational efficiency.

(2) The summons for taking action consists of:
1. name and address of the user of public funds that violated the obligation of operational efficiency,
2. names and positions of the responsible people,
3. title of the audit that revealed irregularities and inefficiencies in business operations due to which the severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency took place,
4. demand that the body who received summons must, in 30 days after the day of delivery of the summons, present to the Court of Audit report about taking measures or explanations for not taking measures,
5. notice that the responsible person is fined if the body does not issue and deliver report about taking measures or explanations for not taking measures in due time to the Court of Audit (paragraph 5 of the Article 38 of the Court of Audit Act).

(3) Summons for taking action is attached to audit report, response report and post audit report or to the report on audit of response report.

(4) Summons for taking action is delivered to the user of public funds that violates the obligation of operational efficiency.

Article 40
(notice for the National Assembly)

(1) If the user of public funds commits severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency, the President notifies thereof the National Assembly.

(2) The notice for the National Assembly consists of:
1. name and address of the user of public funds who committed severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
2. names and positions of responsible people,
3. title of the audit that revealed irregularities and inefficiencies in business operation that present severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency.

(3) The notice for the National Assembly is attached to response report and post audit report or to report on audit of the response report.

(4) The notice for the National Assembly is delivered to the user of public funds that severely violates the obligation of operational efficiency.

Article 41
(summons to discharge the responsible person)


(1) If there is severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency or violation of provisions of paragraphs 8, 9 of the Article 27 of the Court of Audit Act found at the user of public funds, the President issues summons to discharge the responsible person. It is issued to the body that is authorised to start or carry out the procedure of discharging.

(2) In cases where the reasons for issuing summons to discharge the responsible person are severe violations of the obligation of operational efficiency, the summons consists of:
1. name and address of the user of public funds who committed severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
2. names and positions of responsible people that are to be discharged,
3. title of the audit that revealed irregularities and inefficiencies in business operation that present severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
4. demand that the body who received the summons should made a decision and deliver it in written form to the Court of Audit in 15 days after the day of receiving the summons,
5. notice that the responsible person is fined if the body does not decide or send the decision about the summons in due time to the Court of Audit (paragraph 6 of the Article 38 of the Court of Audit Act).

(3) The summons referred in the previous paragraph is attached to audit report, response report and post audit report or to report on audit of response report.

(4) In cases where the reasons for issuing summons to discharge the responsible person are violations of the provisions of paragraphs 8, 9 of the Article 27 of the Court of Audit Act, the summons consists of:
1. name and title of user of public funds who violated provisions of paragraphs 8, 9 of the Article 27 of the Court of Audit Act,
2. names and positions of responsible people that are to be discharged,
3. title of the audit that revealed violations of paragraphs 8, 9 of the Article 27 of the Court of Audit Act,
4. demand that the body who received the summons should made a decision and deliver it in written form to the Court of Audit in 15 days after the day of receiving the summons,
5. notice that the responsible person is fined if the body does not decide or send the decision about the summons in due time to the Court of Audit (paragraph 6 of the Article 38 of the Court of Audit Act).

(5) The summons to discharge the responsible person is delivered to the person to be discharged.

Article 42
(press notice)

(1) If there is severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency or violation of provisions of paragraphs 8, 9 of the Article 27 of the Court of Audit Act found at the user of public funds, the President issues press notice.

(2) The press notice consists of:
1. name and address of the user of public funds who committed severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
2. names and positions of responsible people,
3. title of the audit that revealed irregularities and inefficiencies in business operation that present severe violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
4. short description of irregularities and inefficiencies in business operations of user of public funds that reveal violation of the obligation of operational efficiency,
5. description of activities of public funds user after the audit was completed,
6. measures taken by the Court of Audit and bodies that were delivered summons for taking action or summons for discharging responsible person.

(3) Press notice is published in media selected by the President.

Article 43
(proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community)


(1) The proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community is issued by the President. It is delivered to the Local Community Council.

(2) Supreme State Auditor for audit area of local communities (hereafter referred to as Supreme State Auditor for local communities) or authorised Deputy President propose to the President the proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community, if they believe that undertaken audit reveals that the supervisory committee of local community does not carry out its roles or that they are not carried out appropriately.

(3) The proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community consists of:
1. name of the local community,
2. title of the audit that revealed that the supervisory committee of local community does not carry out its roles or that they are not carried out appropriately,
3. list of the tasks that the supervisory committee of local community does not carry out or does not carry out appropriately.

(4) If the proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community was presented by Supreme State Auditor for local communities, the President shall demand from the authorised Deputy President to prepare his / her opinion about proposal in 8 days.

(5) If the proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community was presented by authorised Deputy President, the President shall demand from the Supreme State Auditor for local communities to prepare his / her opinion about proposal in 8 days.

(6) In 15 days after the delivery of the proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community the President decides whether to issue the proposal. His decision is in written form presented to authorised Deputy President and to the Supreme State Auditor for local communities.

(7) The proposal for discharging supervisory committee of local community is delivered to the president of the supervisory committee.


Counselling to Users of Public Funds

Article 44
(independence)

When counselling to the Users of public funds the Court of Audit must keep its audit independence.

Article 45
(opinion about public finance issues)

(1) When the opinion about public finance issues is based on previous audits, the opinion can be presented by member of the Court of Audit or Supreme State Auditor.

(2) If the opinion about public finance issues is above Court of Audit’s experience referred to previous audits, the opinion is presented by the senate.

(3) Opinion about public finance issues presented by the senate is always considered when carrying out audits.

Article 46
(opinion of the member of the Court of Audit or Supreme State Auditor)

Member of the Court of Audit and Supreme State Auditor can counsel to the users of public funds also by giving their own professional opinion about public financial issues with an explanation that the Court of Audit did not define the opinion and that his / her opinion is not the opinion of the Court of Audit.

Article 47
(way of counselling)

(1) Counselling should not be expressed as commenting or assessing issued audit reports.

(2) The previous paragraph does not interfere with professional, scientific, research opinions or pedagogic work.


Public Nature of the Work of the Court of Audit

Article 48
(public nature of work of the Court of Audit)

(1) The Court of Audit assures public nature of its work by:
1. report about work presented to the National Assembly,
2. press conferences and press releases in media,
3. publishing audit reports in electronic version,
4. regular publications about work in electronic version,
5. press notices,
6. publishing important opinions about issues under Court’s authority.

(2) Information about audit and post-audit procedures can be issued by members of the Court of Audit and person authorised for public relations.

(3) Information about audit in the process of execution are limited to the phase in which the audit is and the possible date of conclusion.

Article 49
(confidentiality)

(1) Audit Programme, personal details obtained during the pre-audit inquiries, draft audit reports and proposed audit reports must be safeguarded as confidential by the employees of the Court of Audit.

(2) Audit Programme must be safeguarded as confidential until the end of the calendar year to which it is referred.

(3) For employees of the Court of Audit the responsibility referred to in the first paragraph of this Article continuous also after they are no longer employed at the Court of Audit.

(4) In the audit report there are personal details presented minimised to names, surnames and positions of the responsible people of the auditee.

Final Provision

Article 50
(validity)

This Rules of Procedure shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia after the National Assembly adopts it. It shall enter into force on the day after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia.



No 3101-4/01-4
Ljubljana, 14 September 2001

Published in Official Gazzette Repubic Slovenia, No. 91/01.
Documents