Biegli i specjaliści w postępowaniu kontrolnym NIK – perspektywa zmian - analiza porównawcza

Najwyższa Izba Kontroli coraz częściej korzysta z pomocy biegłych i specjalistów. Tymczasem stosowanie poświęconych im regulacji zawartych w ustawie o NIK w praktyce sprawia trudności. Wątpliwości budzi tryb ich powoływania, ponieważ ustawa pozostawia dużą swobodę. Dotyczy ona także ustalania wynagrodzenia. Może to prowadzić do nadmiernego wzrostu cen oraz wydłużania negocjacji. Wymóg zawarcia umowy powoduje ponadto, że w istocie to biegły (specjalista) decyduje, czy podejmie się czynności. Dysfunkcjonalne są również rozwiązania o ich wyłączeniu. Wskazana byłaby więc poważna reforma przepisów.

The changes in the performance of public tasks that are subject to NIK’s audits that call for using advanced technologies, require NIK to more often use the knowledge of experts and specialists. Experts do not establish facts or status quo, but assess them through the prism of specialist information, while specialists support auditors in determining facts. However, the border between assessing facts and determining them on the basis of specialist knowledge is unclear. In practice, the application of the provisions on experts and specialists comprised in the Act of 23rd December 1994 on the Supreme Audit Office raises many doubts. They are mainly related to the mixed course of appointment, and the entities that can be entrusted with these functions. The article aims to analyse the regulations dedicated to experts and specialists in NIK audits in comparison with other procedures. The intention is to delineate suggested directions for changes. The author concludes that there is the need for a serious and thorough reform of the provisions of the Act on NIK related to experts and specialists. He emphasises that – since NIK audits mainly public authorities or administration bodies – these functions should be mostly their responsibility. It would be justified then to allow the staff of public institutions to act as experts or specialists on the basis of a decision (without concluding a contract) or, alternatively, on the basis of an agreement between NIK and the given entity. It would be also reasonable to allow legal entities and organisational units (or natural persons representing them) to act as experts during audit proceedings. In the opinion of the author, there are also arguments for establishing a mechanism to discipline experts (specialists) so that the decision on when to commence the task is not an exclusively at their discretion. The job of experts and specialists in the audit process should be of a public law nature. Amendments are also necessary for the provisions on excluding experts (specialists) from audit proceedings. The current provisions do not meet the specifics of NIK’s audits, since exclusion is possible only when the auditee applies for it. And auditees are informed neither about the appointment of experts or specialists nor about their activities. Since inquisitional elements prevail in the audit process, the need for engaging experts (specialists) ex officio is justified, since the body that appoints them usually finds out about the reasons for excluding them first.