168
The Principle of Accountability
(n) Individual accountability: each for himself During the judgement phase, which can involve the imposition of sanctions, hierarchical and collective accountability strategies often run up against moral objections because a proportional relation between crime and punishment is by no means always evident. Individual accountability, in which each individual official is held proportionately liable for his personal contribution to the wrongful conduct of the organization, is from a moral standpoint a far more adequate strategy. Under this approach, each individual is judged on the basis of his actual contribution instead of on the basis of his formal position. Individual officials will thus find it impossible to hide behind their organization or minister, while those in charge are not required to shoulder all the blame. This approach is characteristic of professional accountability. In the case of medical errors, individual physicians are called to account by the disciplinary tribunal, which attempts to establish precisely the extent to which the physician’s individual performance satisfied professional standards.
5. Sources of the Principle of Accountability The sources for the principle of accountability are first the classical ones: legislation, decisions, case law, and literature. The principle of accountability is also relevant in legislation, policy rules, case law, and reports of the Ombudsman and the Court of Audit. A specific law must be taken here as an example. The Government’s Accounts Act is the basis for the financial audit and the efficiency audits which have to be made by public institutions and which are subject to control by the Court of Audit. Especially in the context of efficiency audits, there is a broader accountability check than on financial aspects. We read in the former Dutch Government’s Account Act –which has been updated and came into effect 2018 -the following relevant articles in relation to the principles of accountability in the context of financial audits.
(a) Regularity audit Part 2. Regularity audit Section 51 1. The Court of Audit shall scrutinise: a. Our Ministers’ financial management and the associated annual financial statements; b. the financial records kept for the said management and statements. 2. With regard to financial management, the Court of Audit shall examine whether commitments, expenditures and receipts have been made in accordance with budgetary legislation and other statutory provisions and whether in general the requirements of order and control have been met. 3. With regard to the annual financial statements, the Court of Audit shall examine whether they represent financial management accurately and are drawn up in accordance with the relevant requirements. 4. The Court of Audit shall set out its findings and its opinion on the financial management and the associated financial statements in the reports referred to in section 67 (2).
Section 52 With regard to the central government accounts and trial balance referred to in section 66 (2), the Court of Audit shall examine whether these documents are in keeping with
