In an interview, Filipa Calvão stated that “the court observes the legal timeframe” of 30 working days to issue a prior approval for processes subject to prior scrutiny, noting that the average approval rate is “12 working days.”
“When processes are not sufficiently prepared by administrative entities, [the Court of Auditors] returns them. During the period when the process is sent back to the entity to be more fully prepared, the deadline count stops and then resumes. This causes some delay, but often it is also delayed because the entities themselves have difficulty in completing the information (…) with all the necessary elements,” she remarked.
“The narrative that public administration delays—particularly in the implementation of European funds and also in the context of public procurement—are attributable to the court is clearly exaggerated. In other words, the main cause of some public administration slowness is surely not the court,” she added.
These comments from Filipa Calvão come after Minister of State and for State Reform, Gonçalo Matias, announced on November 3 that the government plans to review the Public Contracts Code, the Administrative Procedure Code, and the Organization Law of the Court of Auditors, with the proposal expected to be presented to parliament by January.
Filipa Calvão emphasized that “it is not necessarily the prior scrutiny that delays public administration.”
“It is true that regarding some public spending acts, some public contracts, the court refuses approval. And when the approval is refused, it obviously means that it is not through that contract that the intended interest can be achieved. But that is not a cause of slowness: it is simply the court’s understanding that the contract cannot take effect because it contradicts the law,” she explained.
“The narrative, created in various contexts but mainly in the political context, is an attempt to create a scapegoat,” she contested.
Filipa Calvão warned that this argument should be used with “caution” lest, with the announced legislative review, political and administrative powers would no longer be able to attribute responsibilities to the court.
“This argument should be employed with caution, I would advise, because if you eliminate the scapegoat—if you do away with prior approval or substantially reduce it—you will no longer have an easy explanation for delays in pursuing public interest, and therefore, those using this argument need to exercise some caution, as it could backfire against the public administration itself,” she asserted.
The president of the Court of Auditors clarified that the institution “is not against” a law review, provided the changes do not leave public expenditure management “unchecked,” without control.
