The authors deal with the issue of possible liability of auditors for damage caused to third parties (shareholders, creditors, potential investors...) by performing a statutory audit. They present some of the comparative solutions to these issues and the changes at the European jurisdiction caused by major financial scandals at the beginning of this century. The main objective of Directive 2014/56 / EU is to strengthen the public-law supervision of auditors and their services, which should enhance the quality of their services and the confidence of third parties in their work. There are a number of rules of auditor’s professional standards and ethical rules, raised to the level of regulation. The professional skepticism and independence of auditors, the underlying assumption that the auditor’s opinion is not misleading, are particularly pronounced. The professional skepticism and independence of auditors are particularly pronounced, the underlying assumption that the auditor’s opinion is not misleading. However, the responsibility for providing financial information is at the management of the audited entities, and the auditors only actively question this information, not affirming them. Third parties are often unaware of the limitations of an audit which lead to an expectation gap. In Croatia there are no specific rules on auditors’ liability for damage and according to general rules liability is unlimited, to the audited company and to third parties. Autori obrađuju pitanje moguće odgovornosti revizora za štetu prema trećim osobama (dioničarima, kreditorima, potencijalnim investitorima…) prouzročenu obavljanjem zakonske revizije. Daju prikaz nekih poredbenopravnih rješenja toga pitanja i promjena do kojih su na europskoj razini doveli veliki financijski skandali početkom ovog stoljeća. Osnovni cilj Direktive 2014/56/EU jačanje je javnopravnog nadzora nad revizorima i njihovom djelatnosti, koji bi trebao pojačati kvalitetu njihovih usluga i povjerenje trećih osoba u njihov rad. Niz je pravila iz revizorskih profesionalnih standarda i etičkih pravila, podignuto na razinu propisa. Posebno su naglašene profesionalna skeptičnost i neovisnost revizora, temeljne pretpostavke da revizorsko mišljenje nije pogrešno. Međutim, odgovornost za pružanje financijskih informacija na upravi je subjekata koji su predmet revizije, revizori te informacije samo aktivno propituju, a ne potvrđuju ih. Treći, često nisu svjesni ograničenja revizije, što dovodi do njihovih nerealnih očekivanja. U Republici Hrvatskoj ne postoje posebna pravila o odgovornosti revizora za štetu, pa se na nju primjenjuju opća pravila o odgovornosti, prema kojima je ona neograničena i prema revidiranom društvu i prema trećima.