Activities of Notis MARIAS related to 2016/2151(DEC)
Plenary speeches (1)
Discharge 2015: EU general budget - European Commission and executive agencies (A8-0150/2017 - Joachim Zeller) EL
Amendments (46)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the estimated error level in the policy area of economic, social and territorial cohesion is 5,2%, which represents a small decrease of 0,5% from last year but is still unacceptably high;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is satisfied withNotes the overall implementation by the Commission of the budgetary headings for environment, climate action, public health and food safety in 2015;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is satisfied withNotes the work carried out by the five decentralised agencies which are under its remit and which carry out technical, scientific or managerial tasks that help the Union institutions elaborate and implement policies in the area of environment, climate, public health and food safety, as well as with the way those agencies’ budgets are implemented;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the 2.9% error rate established by the European Court of Auditors for agriculture for 2015 - in 2014 it was 3.6% - continues to decline; regdeplorets, however, that the estimated error rate is still above the 2% materiality threshold; points out that problems are administrative in nature, in many instances, and hence the error rate neither should be taken as a yardstick for fraud, inefficiency or waste nor necessarily means that monies have vanished, have been lost or have been squandered;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is satisfied to seeStresses that the follow-up of DG MARE’s reservation made in its 2014 annual report in respect of the management and control system for the EFF programmes (2007-2013) has significantly reduced the number of operational programmes and Member States concerned to only five;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is Streassuredes that the internal control system implemented by DG MARE provides sufficient assurance to adequately manage the risk relating to the legality and regularity of the transactions;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that gender equality ishould be a cross-cutting objective for all policy areas; notes, however, that accessible data do not allow the quantification of appropriations allocated to actions contributing to gender equality in most EU funds and programmes;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. SupportNotes all recommendations formulated by the ECA based on its findings; welcomes the fact that the Commission has fully implemented 5 out of the 7 recommendations the ECA made in the 2012 and 2013 reports and urges the Commission to take steps to conclude implementation of the remaining ones;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Expresses regret, however,Deplores the fact that the vast majority of Member States transmitted their operational programme related to the EMFF very late, which causesing long delays in the mobilisation of fthe Funds;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that the Member States should improve the instruments and channels they use to transmit information to the Commission; recommends that the Commission exert greater pressure on Member States to submit reliable data;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Repeats its calls on the Commission to implement gender budgeting at all stages of the budgetary process, including, inter alia, in the implementation of the budget and the assessment of its execution, including EFSI, ESF, ERDF, Horizon 2020, in order to combat the discrimination taking place in the EU Member States; stresses that quantifiable indicators for results and impact of the budget implementation on the achievement of gender equality objectives must be incorporated in the planning and evaluation of the budget, in line with the Budget Focused on Results initiative and the focus on performance;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the principal sources of error in this area are the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries´ cost declarations, the selection of ineligible projects, activities and beneficiaries and the infringement of public procurement and State aid rules; stresses the need to take steps immediately to reduce these sources of error;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. EncouragesCalls on the budgetary authority to focus on pilot projects (PP) and preparatory actions (PA) with true added value for the Union in the future; acknowledges that ten PP and five PA amounting all together to EUR 1 400 000 in commitment appropriations and EUR 5 599 888 in payment appropriations have been implemented;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission, and expects it to be further reduced;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concerndisapproval the persisting deficiencies in the quality of expenditure verifications carried out by auditors contracted by beneficiaries, which in some cases lead to the Commission's acceptance of ineligible costs;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the main sources of errors are those found in the application of rules on eligibility, infringements of public procurement rules and state aid rules; underlines that errors made in 2015 may also be corrected before closure; notes with satisfaction the significantthe improvements in audit authorities’ controls compared to the previous year;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the error rate for the first pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (EAGF: 2.2%) is very different from that for the second CAP pillar (EAFRD: 5.3%) and that that considerable difference is accounted for by the fact that the two CAP pillars differ in design, scale and objectives; welcomnotes the fact that direct payments were predominantly regular;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. WelcomesStresses its satisfaction at the fact that the Commission has accepted and taken account of all the Court’s recommendations;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is very concernedDeplores the fact that Member States had sufficient information available to prevent and correct errors before claiming reimbursement and if this information was used the estimated errors would have been 2,4% lower and that, in addition, the error at Member State level contributed a further 0,6% to error levels;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the level of implementation in the Public Health programme 2014-2020 is very good, at 99,.9%, and that the payment appropriations available were fully implemented;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines and shares, however, the concerns that the Commission’s auditors have expressed with regard to the need to ensure that these agreements bring value for money and are economically and environmentally sustainable;the need to ensure the environmental viability of agreements.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StressesDeplores the fact that, despite the joint declaration attached to the MFF on gender mainstreaming, no specific measures have so far been taken; calls for effective monitoring of the implementation of that declaration in the annual budgetary procedure;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that DG SANTE was responsible, in 2015, for implementing EUR 237 251 659 on public health budget lines, of which 97,4% have been committed satisfactorily; however, these funds have proved insufficient to support Member States' health systems; also takes note that the level of execution of payments is at 97,2%; stresses, however, that all credits under the Health domain were fully implemented, except for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA); nevertheless underlines that the under-execution of those commitment appropriations fully corresponds to the outturn of 2014;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is of the opinionRecommends, on the basis of the data available and the implementation report, that discharge can be grantedpostponing discharge to the Commission with respect to expenditure in the areas of environmental and climate policy, public health and food safety for the financial year 2015.
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes the ECA recommendation that the Commission immediately and fundamentally reconsiders the design and delivery mechanism for the ESIFs when making its legislative proposal for the next programming period and takes into account the suggestions of the high level simplification group;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls onUrges the Court of Auditors to include an analysis of achieving gender- related targets included in the EU 2020 Strategy in the annual reports assessing the execution of the Union budget;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its previous calls on the Commission to ensure the full implementation of the funds allocated to the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme and urges it to take immediate steps to increase funding for the promotion of gender equality; notes that full implementation of the 2015 budget is declared by the use of global commitments, not allowing for a clear assessment of the use of the funds;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its view that the Union’s financial rules need to be better adapted to the specificities of external action, including crisis management, and stresses that the current revision of the Financial Regulation needs to deliver greater flexibility.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. UrgesCalls on the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the Commission to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidance; _________________ 1 High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses its concernDeplores the fact that managing authorities presented a lower level of cost claims for reimbursement in 2015 than in 2014, which led to a fall in the level of unpaid cost claims from EUR 23,2 billion in 2014 to EUR 10,8 billion in 2015, of which EUR 2,8 billion had remained unpaid since the end of 2014; points out the risk that delays in the budgetary execution for 2014-2020 period will be greater than those for the previous period;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated; urgescalls on Member States to speed up this process and the Commission to provide assistance and clarifications;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concernDeplores the fact that, as of 30 June 2016, not all Member States had transposed the directives on public procurement and urges the Commission to assist Member States increase their capacity to transpose those directives, as well as to implement all their action plans on ex ante conditionalities;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the fact that many small-scale programmes, such as the school fruit and school milk schemes, are not user-friendly, partly because of the red tape involved, meaning less than perfect acceptance and implementation; welcomescalls on Commissioner Hogan’s to take immediate simplification initiatives in this connection;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the use of additional financial instruments, though they must be designed with a sufficient degree of immediate compatibility to ensure that they do not result in an increased error rate;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomStresses the Court’s approach to focus on performance and considers it good practice that managing authorities define relevant result indicators measuring the contribution of the projects to the achievement of the objectives set for the operational programmes.
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to make greater use of the opportunities regarding the performance reserve within the existing legal framework, in order to create a genuine financial stimulus to effectively improve the financial management; requests furthermore a reinforcement of the performance reserve as an instrument, by increasing the performance-dependent component in the following legislative framework;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomNotes the Commission’s proposed new approach to error rate analysis; welcomes also the Commission’s new procedure, likely to be applied for the first time in 2016, for prior checks, while retaining the method for dealing with minor errors;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. WelcomNotes Commissioner Oettinger’s intention to bring the various shadow budgets, in the long run, back under the Union budget; Calls on the Commission to prepare a communication on this issue;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Underlines that the control burden for end-users would decrease if a 'Single Audit' approach would be applied, in which a European audit would not be carried out separately, but would build on national audits. Such a continuing line of accountability would however only be possible if national audits are adequate and if Commission and Member States would agree on the principles and interpretations; calls on the Commission to be proactive in this regard by publishing guidelines;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 b (new)
Paragraph 42 b (new)
42b. Believes that granting discharge should depend on the necessary improvement in financial management at Member State level; points at the instrument of national declarations in this context which could help to achieve greater accountability and ownership at national level;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 a (new)
Paragraph 58 a (new)
58a. Reiterates its call for thematic concentration, as expressed in its discharge report on budget year 2014; calls on the Commission to inquire to what extent thematic concentration could contribute to simplification and a decrease of the regulatory burden and control burden;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 206
Paragraph 206
206. Takes noteDeplores that the Court did not formulate any error rate regarding this policy area whilst the director general of DG HOME estimates in his 2015 annual activity report a residual multiannual error rate of 2,88% for DG HOME directly managed non-research grants;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 210
Paragraph 210
210. Takes noteDeplores that the Commission considers that it is “difficult if not impossible to provide an estimated cost paid for migrants/seeker country by country as the management of migratory flows comprises a wide range of activities”107 ; _________________ 107 reply to written question 23 - hearing of Commissioner AVRAMOPOULOS of 29 November 2016
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 223 a (new)
Paragraph 223 a (new)
223a. Calls for the Commission to play its full part in all aspects of the process of reform covering managerial, financial, organisational and pedagogical issues; asks that the Commission submits annually a report giving its assessment of the state of progress in these areas to the European Parliament to ensure its relevant committees can scrutinise the management of the schools system and evaluate the use it makes of the resources put at the system's disposal out of the European Union budget asks that the relevant Commissioner give the matter his close attention, and specifically calls on him to participate personally in the biannual meetings of the Board of Governors; reiterates Parliament's view that a 'comprehensive review' of the European Schools system is urgently required; calls for the first draft of the review in question to be provided until 30 June 2017;