3 Amendments of Roberta METSOLA related to 2018/2166(DEC)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deeply regrets, however, that for 2017, just like for 2016, the Court chose to ignore the request of the LIBE Committee toRegrets that the Court did not calculate the specific payment error rate of Heading III (Security and Citizenship) in 2017; Reiterates its call to provide specific error rates per budget heading; notes that DG HOME self-assessed its payment error rate below the materiality threshold of 2%; regrets that the limitedcalls for a larger sample of 15 transactions audited for 2017 was not sufficient for the Court to confirm this positive resultthat are audited to provide the Court with the necessary information to properly assess the results achieved in this policy area;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses nevertheless the importance for the EU thato have the Court systematically and independently assesses payment error rates of all politically sensitive areas of the EU budget; fears especiallyconsiders that theany misuse of EU funds in, especially funds allocated to the Migration, Security and Border Management policies could have severe detrimental impacts on the functioning of the EU due to institutional reputation degradation, loss of trust by citizens or governments, rise of anti-EU sentiment, etc.; insists that intangible (non-financial) risks should properly be taken into account by the Court in its audit strategy and in addition to tangible and quantifiable financial oney areas, entails the risk of a reduced impact on the EU's efforts to achieve its policy goals;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the key finding of the Court that AMIF and ISF accounts cleared by the Commission in 2017 did not distinguish between pre-financing payments (advances) made by Member States to final beneficiaries, and payments made to reimburse expenditure actually incurred; agrees with the Court that, even if such practice is in line with the current reporting requirements for AMIF and ISF, it nevertheless severely undermines as agreed by both co-legislators, it has an impact on the Commission’s supervisory role; supports the recommendation of the Court to require Member States, in the annual accounts of their AMIF and ISF national programmes, to break down the nature of the amounts they report into recoveries, pre-financing, and expenditure actually incurred, so the Commission can report this information adequately in its Annual Activity report as from 2018; calls on the co-legislators to change the reporting requirements of JHA funds in the upcoming multiannual financial framework.