3 Amendments of Pavel TELIČKA related to 2018/2166(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the finding of the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) that the consolidated accounts of the Union for the year 2017 are reliable and that the transactions underlying the accounts of the Commission for the 2017 financial year are generally legal and regular in all material aspects, except for cost reimbursement payments, which are affected by errors; notes that the overall estimated level of error of 2,4% is still above the Court’s materiality threshold (2%), down from 3,1% in 2016 and 3,8% in 2015;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that in 2017 the Commission selected 152 projects for a total of CEF Transport funding of EUR 2,7 billion, with the total investment of EUR 4,7 billion, including other public and private financing; reiterates the importance of the CEF funding instrument for the completion of the TEN-T network, for achieving a Single European Transport Area, for developing the cross-border links and filling the missing links; regrets that the opportunity offered by the CEF has not been fully appreciated by all national stakeholders; recalls that the amount of money spent under a financial instrument is not its only performance criteria and invites the Commission to deepen its assessment of the achievements completed under EU funded transport projects and measure their added-value aspect and result oriented spending;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the Commission’s Internal Audit Service, as part of its audit on the Commission’s supervision of the implementation of CEF financial instruments, found that there was a very low rate of implementation of financial instruments under CEF and the majority of the budget originally allocated to CEF financial instruments (EUR 2,43 billion) was re-allocated to CEF grants budget lines, leaving only EUR 296 million available for CEF financial instruments until 2020; also notes that one of the reasons given was that the eligibility criteria of the CEF financial instruments and of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) largely overlap and potential CEF eligible projects have in fact been financed by EFSI, as it has greater political priority and a larger remit; calls on the Commission, as regards the CEF, to improve the level of awareness among beneficiaries of the eligibility rules, in particular by drawing a clear distinction between an implementation contract and subcontract - which was the main source of confusion among beneficiaries; calls on the Commission to ensure that financial instruments complement rather that substitute each other;