5 Amendments of Dominique MARTIN related to 2017/2136(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that there has been, on average, a sustained improvement in the overall estimated level of error in payments made from the EU budget in the past few years (4,.4 % in 2014; 3,.8 % in 2015; 3,.1 % in 2016); welcomnotes that for the first time since 1994, the Court issued a qualified opinion on the regularity of the transactions underlying the 2016 accounts;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges the overall positive impact of the corrective action by authorities in the Member States and by the Commission, which had a positiven impact on the estimated level orf error and without which the estimated level of error would have been 1,.2 % higher;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concernDeplores the high estimated level of error in the policy area of ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ at 4,.8 %, which is above the error level for the EU budget as a whole (3,.1 %); notes, however, that this represents a small decrease from the previous year (5,2 %); notes that the estimated error level in the area of ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ is 4,1 %;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. DeplorNotes that, as it was the case in previous years, Member States had sufficient information available to prevent, or to detect and correct, a significant number of errors; notes the Courts recommendation not to introduce additional control in EU spending but to make sure that the existing control mechanisms are enforced properly the complexity of European red tape in relation to payments sparks a vicious circle of errors, waste and misuse for which only the Commission is responsible and to which it can put a stop by making greater efforts to make access to the ESI Funds more transparent;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for a complete revision of the role of the European agencies and for an assessment of whether their tasks and objectives could not be better accomplished by the existing Commission Directorates-General or by the Member States, in order to prevent duplication of roles, limit waste and cut costs by improving transparency and efficiency in the use of public funds;