| 摘要: | 歐洲主權債信危機又稱為歐洲債信危機，或簡稱為歐債危機。最初是在希臘爆發（2009年12月），次年，歐元區內同樣存在主權債務龐大問題的葡萄牙（1月）、愛爾蘭、義大利與西班牙（皆發生於2月）等五國接連爆發，不但引發了歐洲的金融危機，也併發了全球的金融恐慌，歐盟及國際貨幣基金等國際組織不得不出手援助，提供債信危機國財政紓困的方案與措施，以紓緩危機國的財政問題，並穩定歐洲與全球的金融市場。
若國家最高審計機關能夠善盡監察職能、為人民監督政府財政、並使之公開透明化，可以省下政府及其相關機構不必要的花費、發揮國家資源的最大運用效能，不但可以杜絕及預防貪腐、打擊不法舞弊，並可向政府及其相關機構提供有效的建議，改善財務支出與節約運用社會整體資源，進而提升國家的經濟建設成效、促進國家整體經濟發展，因此，債信發生國的最高審計機關所應發揮的功能，也應涵蓋於整體歐債危機的研究當中。
此外，在歐盟體系中，歐洲審計院身為外部監督單位，如果可以透過即時查核，發現問題的所在，並且，若每一個歐盟會員國都能依法提供資訊，做為其監督查核的依據，並透過其與各國審計機關有效的監督、提供建言，以求改善財政弊端，在雙重審計保障的機制下，應可以防患歐債危機的發生，或降低歐債危機的衝擊及影響。
換言之，從完整審計功能的角度來看歐債危機，債信發生國的最高審計機關因資訊不實及不完整，未能即時的提報債信國政府財報不實，未有效履行其監察效能，因而便無法防患危機；而歐洲審計院做為歐盟的把關機構，也因權限有限未能積極的與會員國合作、有效監察債信危機國的財政情況，亦未扮演其在歐盟體制上所期待的提供層層把關功能。
The European financial crisis, also known as the European debt crisis, originally began by December 2009 in Greece. On the next year, countries in the Euro zone also had the same debt problems, like Portugal in January, and Ireland, Italy and Spain in February, caused the same crisis’s one by one. It was not only a European financial crisis, but also caused a global financial panic. The European Union, the IMF and the other international organizations had to provide financial programs and measures to ease these countries’ fiscal embarrassments and stabilize the global financial market.
If the Supreme Audit Institutes (SAIs) of these countries, who had debt crisis, could well execute their duties, such as monitoring governmental finance for the people and make it public and transparency, it could save government’s unnecessary expenses and maximize the effectiveness of distributing national resources. Furthermore, it can prevent and eliminate corruption and fraud by making recommendations on improving financial expenses, distributing resources, enhancing efficiency and promoting economic growth. Therefore, the performances of the SAIs of these countries who had debt crisis should be included into the studies of the crisis.
In addition, as the external auditor of the EU system, if the European Court of Auditors could found the problem through immediate auditing, collecting information provided by all the members, and working closely with the SAIs of all the members, it could possibly prevent the crisis or, at least, reduce the impact of the crisis.
In other words, from the perspective of complete audit functions, due to the SAIs of the countries who had deft crisis were able to collect incomplete or partly financial reports from the authorities, they could not alert that the authorities had provided inaccurate financial reports, and fail to practice their duties as auditors. In the meantime, as the gatekeeper of the EU, the European Court of Auditors did not aggressively work with the members, nor audit the financial status of the countries who had crisis, due to its limited authority. It did not only fail to reach the EU system’s expectation, but also fail to prevent the crisis. |
