Activities of Daniel FREUND related to 2020/2140(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Amendments (7)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes note of European Commission’s assessment that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) presents a low risk of error; requests however that the Commission, together with the Court and OLAF, closely monitor the EU transport projects, as public investment in infrastructure is particularly sensitive to fraud; considers this essential not only to ensure transparency that prevents corruption and misuse of taxpayers' money, but also to ensure that the highest safety standards for the users are not compromised;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its support to the addition of a pillar of military mobility to TEN-T policy with adoption of the Action Plan in March 2018; regrets that the proposal by the Commission and European ParliamentWelcomes that the proposal to include a new envelope dedicated to military mobility needs of EUR 6,5 billion under the CEF budget for 2021-2027 has been drastically reduced;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates the Parliament’s request for the creation of a new budgetary line for Sustainable Tourism, to support thise recovery and transformation of a sector severely hit by the Covid-19 crisis and make it resilient for the future and compliant with the European Green Deal ambitions; welcomes that the Court has launched an audit to assess tourism projects co-funded with EUR 6.4 billion in 2007-2013 and EUR 4 billion so far in 2014-2020 ERDF and Cohesion Fund money, which will help improving EU Tourism policies;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that the new regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget is applicable since 1st January 2021;stresses that the Court of Justice of the European Union has already unequivocally established in its recent judgment in case C-5/16 Poland v EP & Council[1]that statements contained in European Council Conclusions cannot prevail over or modify the text of the regulation;calls therefore on the European Commission, as “Guardian of the Treaties" to apply the regulation from the date it entered into force and start the rule of law mechanisms when it is necessary; [1] Judgment of 21 June 2018, EU:C:2018:483.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Deplores the fact that the implementation of the CAP and the Cohesion Policy in EU Member States has in total 292 reporting systems, which makes the data fragmented and non- comparable, and prevents the effective use of AI and big data to control the funds; deplores the fact that none of the CAP and Cohesion policy reporting systems contains information on the ultimate beneficiaries, that disclosing this information is not legally required, and that not all information on beneficial owners of the companies is available in the national central registers of all Member States; calls on the Commission remedy the situation as a matter of urgency to create a unified reporting system which is updated automatically with comparable and timely data to make the system capable of monitoring, controlling with the use of AI and big data; calls on the Commission to make the publication of all information on beneficial owners as a legal requirement as a prerequisite for the use of EU funds as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Recalls that Commission established the Early Detection and Exclusion System to reinforce the protection of the Union's financial interests and to ensure sound financial management and to ensure that those companies and beneficial owners cannot benefit from EU funds who have been convicted in relation of fraud or corruption or other criminal activities related to use of Union funds, or against whom at least OLAF issued judicial recommendations to the criminal authorities of the Member States as of 1 January 2016; deplores the fact that this “EU blacklist” contains only 5 companies at the moment, is of the opinion that this tool could help the EU institutions and national bodies to better fight and prevent corruption and fraud in the Member States; calls therefore on the Commission to improve its use of this tool to connect the blacklist to the OLAF and EPPO and the national databases and create an automated system, which updates this database with reliable and timely information;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to pay increased attention and allocate increased staff and budget of the Commission to Member States, whose management and control systems are only partially or not reliable, where there is an increased risk of fraud and corruption related to funds and especially those Member States who did not join to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;