Activities of Lucas HARTONG related to 2011/2033(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on budgetary management of European Union pre-accession funds in the areas of judicial systems and the fight against corruption in the candidate and potential candidate countries PDF (263 KB) DOC (166 KB)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas at the 1999 Helsinki Summit, the European Council gave Turkey the status of candidate country for EU membership and the EU-Turkey Accession Partnership was adopted in 2001, and whereas at the 2003 Thessaloniki European Council the Stabilisation and Association Process was confirmed as the EU policy on the countries of the Western Balkans region, thus making them eligible for EU accession;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that since 2001 EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey in the area of the fight against corruption has amounted to EUR 6 160 000 for 5 projects, of which EUR 1 661 732 was paid out as of 31 December 2012; highlights the fact that at present one project has been completed, two are ongoing and two are to be started5; seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note that since 2005 EU pre- accession assistance to the countries of the Western Balkans in the area of the fight against corruption has amounted to EUR 55 160 227.76 for 45 projects, of which EUR 16 060 007.57 was paid out as of 31 December 2012; highlights the fact that at present 18 projects have been completed, 17 are ongoing and 10 are to be started6; seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the EU is co-financing two ongoing multi-beneficiary programmes in the area of the fight against corruption under IPA 2010 and IPA 2011 for a total amount of EUR 5 450 000, of which EUR 2 509 942 was paid out as of 31 December 20127; seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the Commission’s new approach to addressing justice reform and home affairs issues early in the accession process; observes, however, that on average only 2.87 % of the total EU pre- accession assistance envelope for the period 2007-2013 is devoted to justice and only 0.52 % to the fight against corruption; therefore seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that genuine implementation and concrete results, in particular in the cases of high-level political corruption and corruption in the judiciary, are still a big challenge and that a convincing track record of cases of prosecution and conviction should be built up in order to measure progress; stresses the need for better planning and funding of anti- corruption work, based on a broad range of stakeholders; calls on the Commission to develop a longer-term and broad-based strategic perspective of EU funding for civil society organisations which are working in the areas of transparency and anti-corruptionurges that those Member States making little progress with implementation be specifically named;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned about the chronic delays incurred in the implementation of projects and, ultimately, their efficiency; notes, for instance, that projects in Turkey incur on average a one-year delay before contracts are executed, because of bottlenecks in tendering and contracting, while in Croatia contracts for PHARE programmes were signed on average more than one year later than scheduled, just a couple of days prior to the contracting deadline established in the Financial Agreement; therefore urges that those contracts be reassessed forthwith, or even immediately terminated, so as to prevent needless squandering of public tax revenues;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that a sectoral approach in the areas of judiciary reform and the fight against corruption would entail positive changes, such as enhancing donor coordination and ensuring better interaction between individual projects; calls, nevertheless, on the Commission to reassess its sectoral approach, given that in most candidate and potential candidate countries neither institutional set-up nor budgeting processes are at a level that will allow this approach to work and that a clear overall strategy and guidance at EU level are still lacking; therefore urges that current accession negotiations with candidate countries be halted;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Acknowledges that, following its audit of pre-accession projects for the period 2001-2005, the European Court of Auditors stated that project sustainability could be improved if: (i) beneficiary involvement was increased; (ii) no projects were launched without a maintenance plan; (iii) the Commission monitored distribution more closely and evaluated the use of EU-funded equipment and infrastructure; and (iv) the delivery of technical assistance was adequately complemented by active encouragement for institutional change; underlines the fact that despite improvements under the IPA programme some weaknesses still remain, notably in terms of stakeholder involvement and maintenance, and notes, for instance, that during the 2011 programming process in Turkey the beneficiaries were hardly involved in the last 12 months; therefore urges, inter alia because of this, that pre-accession assistance for Turkey in particular be discontinued;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15