Have the Czech SAO’s Audits Carried out in the Area of the State Budget Revenues Resulted in a Higher Number of Legislative Changes when Compared to the Audits in the Domain of the State Property Management ?

Act no. 166 / 1993 Coll., On the Supreme Audit Office, as amended.Search in Google Scholar

Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic: Resolution no. 39. 2006, Resolution no. 55. 2006, Resolution no. 262. 2007, Resolution no. 83, 87, 97. 2011, Resolution no. 65. 2012, Resolution no. 51. 2013, Resolution no. 177. 2013, Resolution no. 124. 2015, Resolution no. 76. 2014, Resolution no. 23. 2018, Resolution no. 148. 2015, Resolution no. 161. 2015, Resolution no. 102. 2015.Search in Google Scholar

González, B., A. López and R. García. 2008. “How do Supreme Audit Institutions Measure the Impact of their Work ?” Implementing Reforms in Public Sector Accounting. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Available at https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/jspui/bitstream/10316.2/32146/1/Implementing%20Reforms%20in%20Public%20Sector%20Accounting%20(2008)%20Gonzalez,%20Lopez,%20Garcia.pdf?ln=pt-pt (last accessed 20 September 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Government of the Czech Republic – Government decision (control action year, number and case): 1994 – 94 / 12 case 843 / 95 (without resolution), 1995 – 94 / 26 case 413 / 95 (without resolution), 1995-94 / 28 case 384 / 95 (without resolution), 1995-95 / 04 case 13 / 97 (without resolution), 1995-95 / 09 case 92 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-95 / 20 case 366 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-95 / 22 case 702 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 06 case 682 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 06 case 682 / 96 (without resolution), 1996-96 / 07 case 640 / 97 (without resolution), 1997-96 / 26 case 250 / 98 (without resolution), 1997-96 / 38 case 614 / 97 (without resolution), 1997-97 / 06 case 331 / 98 (without resolution), 1999-98 / 01 case 640 / 99 (without resolution), 1998-97 / 26 (Resolution no. 750 / 1998), 1998-97 / 35 (Resolution no. 751 / 1998), 1999-98 / 02 case 697 / 99 (without resolution), 2000-99 / 21 (Resolution no. 725 / 2000), 2001-00 / 13 (Resolution no. 183 / 2001 and 649 / 2001), 2001-00 / 25 (Resolution no. 869 / 2001), 2002-01 / 02 (Resolution no. 80 / 2002), 2002-01 / 14 (Resolution no. 336 / 2002), 2002-01 / 18 (Resolution no. 337 / 2002), 2002-01 / 29 (Resolution no. 211 / 2003), 2002-01 / 37 (Resolution no. 890 / 2002), 2002-02 / 02 (Resolution no. 151 / 2003), 2003-02 / 16 (Resolution no. 732 / 2003), 2003-02 / 21 (Resolution no. 91 / 2004), 2005-04 / 07 (Resolution no. 142 / 05), 2005-04 / 30 (Resolution no. 1183 / 05), 2005-04 / 39 (Resolution no. 1179 / 05), 2006-05 / 34 (Resolution no. 1257 / 06), 2006-05 / 19 (Resolution no. 467 / 2006 and 1327 / 2006), 2006-05 / 34 (Resolution no. 1257 / 06), 2007-06 / 27 (Resolution no. 842 / 07), 2007-07 / 07 (Resolution no. 232 / 08), 2008-08 / 04 (Resolution no. 297 / 2009), 2010-09 / 11 (Resolution no. 522 / 2010), 2011-10 / 08 (Resolution no. 303 / 2011), 2012-11 / 07 (Resolution no. 495 / 2012), 2012-12 / 01 (Resolution no. 316 / 2013), 2013-13 / 02 (Resolution no. 301 / 2014), 2013-13 / 15 (Resolution no. 300 / 2014), 2014-13 / 35 (Resolution no. 1019 / 2014), 2015-14 / 17 (Resolution no. 104 / 16), 2015-14 / 28 (Resolution no. 155 / 16), 2015-14 / 08 (Resolution no. 691 / 2015), 2016-15 / 15 (Resolution no. 770 / 2016), 2016-15 / 17 (Resolution no. 1078 / 16), 2016-15 / 33 (Resolution no. 782 / 17), 2016-15 / 39 (Resolution no. 1077 / 16), 2015-15 / 05 (Resolution no. 443 / 16), 2015-14 / 40 (Resolution no. 999 / 15), 2015-14 / 34 (Resolution no. 107 / 16), 2015-14 / 29 (Resolution no. 108 / 16), 2014-13 / 40 (Resolution no. 1018 / 14), 2013-13 / 01 (Resolution no. 7 / 14), 2013-12 / 24 (Resolution no. 654 / 13), 2013-12 / 17 (Resolution no. 651 / 13), 2013-12 / 16 (Resolution no. 649 / 13), 2012-12 / 05 (Resolution no. 183 / 13), 2011-11 / 32 (Resolution no. 227 / 12), 2011-10 / 13 (Resolution no. 474 / 11), 2016-16 / 07 (Resolution no. 462 / 17), 2016-16 / 04 (Resolution no. 236 / 17), 2015-14 / 11 (Resolution no. 998 / 15), 2014-13 / 16 (Resolution no. 411 / 14), 2013-13 / 05 (Resolution no. 302 / 14), 2013-12 / 26 (Resolution no. 770 / 13), 2012-11 / 28 (Resolution no. 828 / 12), 2012-10 / 26 (Resolution no. 821 / 12), 2011-10 / 18 (Resolution no. 225 / 12, 373 / 12), 2016-15 / 28 (Resolution no. 1084 / 16), 2015-14 / 30 (Resolution no. 772 / 16), 2012-11 / 33 (Resolution no. 890 / 12).Search in Google Scholar

Groenendijk, N. S. 2004. “Assessing Member States’ Management of EU Finance: An Empirical Analysis of the Annual Reports of the European Court of Auditors”, 1996 – 2001. Public Administration 82(3), 701 – 725.Search in Google Scholar

The Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts. 1977. IX INTOSAI in Lima.Search in Google Scholar

Lonsdale, J. 1999. “Impacts.” In C. Pollitt, C. Xavier, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul and M. Waerness (eds). Performance or Compliance ? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171 – 193.Search in Google Scholar

Lonsdale, J. 2000. “Developments in Value-For-Money Audit Methods: Impacts and Implications.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(1), 73 – 89.Search in Google Scholar

National Audit Office. 2005. “State Audit in the European Union.” Available at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/State_Audit_Book.pdf (last accessed 10 December 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Oţetea, A., C. M. Tiţa and M. A. Ungureanu. 2015. “The Performance Impact of the Supreme Audit Institutions on National Budgets: Great Britain and Romania Case – Comparative Study.” Procedia Economics and Finance 27, 621 – 628. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115010424 (last accessed 20 November 2018).10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01042-4Search in Google Scholar

Pollitt, C. 2003. “Performance Audit in Western Europe: Trends and Choices.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14(1 – 2), 157 – 170.Search in Google Scholar

Pollitt, C. and H. Summa. 1997. “Reflexive Watchdogs ? How Supreme Audit Institutions Account for themselves.” Public Administration 75, 313 – 336. Available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467–9299.00063 (last accessed 5 October 2018).10.1111/14679299.00063(lastaccessed5October2018)Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Pollitt, C., G. Xavier, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa and M. Waerness. 1999. Performance or Compliance ? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford, Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296003.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Supreme Audit Office: Annual reports from 1993. Available at https://www.nku.cz/cz/publikace-a-dokumenty/vyrocni-zprava/ (last accessed 10 January 2019), Audit reports from selected Audit actions, Information from selected Audit actions, EU reports.Search in Google Scholar

The World Bank. 2001. Features and functions of supreme audit institutions. PREM Notes 10 / 2001, number 59, Public Sector. Washington, DC. Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote59.pdf (last accessed 20 September 2018).Search in Google Scholar