Otvoriť - EUROREPORT plus

keeps its money in its bank operating banktransactions of the State.In last two years numerous problemsoccurred which caused postponementof deadlines for attachment of Stateinstitutions to the Treasury system.What sort of problems were they?The postponed functioning of the StateTreasury was influenced by several factors.It began to function from January 2004, i.e.,one year later. The first problem dealt witha complex competitive bidding due to manydelays. So we had to repeat it several times.But it was not the only problem...The information system application wasnot simple and the Treasury personnel castwas delayed due to postponed competitivebidding. Huge problem occurred during thesystem introduction as people from Stateinstitutions did not get ready for it. Notablyin state administration and in ministriespeople disliked an idea of the State Treasurydue to lack of information about the newsystem. Training programme of personnel instate administration was deeply neglected.Therefore, we launched mass trainingsessions covering the new system.Could it be understood as selfcriticism?Yes, indeed. We thought that peoplewere informed well and ready to start tooperate the Treasury. Not everything canbe foreseen beforehand. We learned aboutlack of knowledge on the run. In my opinion,deep aversion to the Treasury resultedjust from that they weren’t familiar withthe new system and they were afraid ofit. Despite being ignorant, both disinterestand aversion of state administration to theState Treasury got weakened after masstraining sessions had been launched. It’sobvious, when people are in ignorance ofsomething they are afraid of it. When theyare afraid of something they fight againstit. Finally, we handled it.Did any legislative obstructions occur?Yes, they did. We had to amend the Lawon State Treasury several times. Initially, itwas foreseen that the entire public sectorwould be involved in it. But self-governmentsretreated, so thus, the system had to beremodified.On top of that, at the end of 2003 theTreasury information system was out oforder for one month entirely.I would not underestimate it. It’s commonwhile applying any information system. Itwas not a decisive problem. Treasury lackedits stand-by. It was provided afterwards. Thesystem is functioning, it is sophisticated. Itwas reasonable to introduce it.Are any self-governments interestedin joining the State Treasury systemvoluntarily?For the time being, three upper territorialunits addressed us that they would liketo become an administrative centre. Theywish to be allocated funds by the State inorder they could upgrade their existing ISto the State Treasury system. They evenfound out that payments for transactionsin the State Treasury were cheaper than incommercial banks where prices for servicesgot remarkably higher. Operation servicesin the State Treasury are almost free. Selfgovernmentseems to change its mind.Notwithsstanding, harmonization of systemmay be rather complex. Of course, we wouldbe happy when the entire scope of publicfinance would get under one informationsystem; it sounds reasonable. But we don’tknow at the present how to reach it andwhat sort of means to use to achieve it.What advantages would the entireinterlink with the State Treasury bringto regions?Cheaper operation payments. Next, theyshouldn’t have to provide the public financesystem with any special data, so thus, theirwork would be facilitated. Apart from it,administrative centre system may managethe entire operation of their finance.In the event that just self-administrationregions join the State Treasury, butnot also towns and villages, it maybe discrimination related to theConstitution breach. Representativesof the upper territorial units said so.What do you think of it?We offerred them an option to come toan agreement based on a contract. Such anagreement would not be in discrepancy withthe Constitution. The Constitution would bebreached only in the event when we wouldintroduce it by force, i.e., to enforce them tojoin the State Treasury by law.Last year Slovakia was defeated insuit with Československá obchodnábanka (ČSOB) Praha [the CzechoslovakCommercial Bank Prague]. The SlovakRepublic has to pay for almost 25billion crowns to ČSOB which requestedmore than 40 billion. Do you considerthe Washington Arbitration Courtresolution to be of success for Slovakiafrom this viewpoint?There was no other way but as theGovernment made a decision, i.e., to pay fordebt. To continue the litigation was a risk asthere had not been anything to catch holdon for Slovakia to follow other way. Besides,ČSOB offerred better terms and conditionseven in comparison with the WashingtonArbitration Court resolution. ČSOB agreedwith instalment payments, it pardonedinterests within a period from arbitrationresolution to paying off, on top of that itgave us some other relief.This suit was taking time for manyyears. If Slovakia paid for earlier, theČSOB restructuralization costs wouldbe lower and Slovakia could benefitfrom the entire transaction. It didn‘thappen so. Who is responsible for it inyour opinion?Let bodies in charge of criminalproceedings resolve it.Excerpt from an Interview withChairman of the Slovak ParliamentaryCommittee for Finance, Budget andCurrency, Pál Farkas [representativeof the Hungarian Coalition Party in thisFunction]Tax reform is one of the key chapters ofthe State Budget Law for this year. Howcan be the law enforcement assessed,notably from the viewpoint of taxreform impact on citizens?We may evaluate tax reform results for2004 already. If we treat global enforcementof the State budget law we have to recognizethat tax reform brought some positiveaspects last year already in comparison withexpectations. I mean State budget incomeprimarily, coming from both businesses andvalue added tax. Globally, income from legalentities and natural persons exceeded anamount by ca fifteen billion Slovak crowns,i.e., roughly by 35 per cent.To what extent were the estimationsin the Bill of State budget law true tofact?Taking into account that income exceedsthe programmed targets by 35 per cent wedefinitely can’t assess the estimation to be themost exact. In order to defend the legislatureit has to be said that it was the first year aftertax reform adoption. Responsibility for taxdeclarations and tax levies improved thanksto decreased taxes from 25% and 38 % to19 per cent. As a result of it businessmenare not motivated to account anythingin their expenses as in comparison withthe preceding period tax base increased.Finally, economy of the Slovak Republic isprospering; macroeconomic figures prove it.Further, purchasing power of inhabitants isincreasing. In the first year after tax reform,real wages grew more than we expected.It was amounting to 0.3 per cent and theincrease was more remarkable.Despite the above optimistic statementit has to be said that opposition madeendeavours on floor of Parliament topush the decrease of some taxes relatedto food, medicaments, mineral oils, etc.It failed many times. Notwithstanding,many countries are thinking of flat tax.Obviously, some opposition politiciansare disarmed by these efforts to dealwith such thoughts further.It can be said that tax reform wasa significant push and it broughsome positive aspects in the firstyear already. Speaking aboutefforts of the opposition, it has85SUMMARY