Activities of Jasenko SELIMOVIC related to 2017/2136(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Amendments (8)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that there has been 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); further notes that entitlement payments, a significant part of the audited expenditure accounting for about 49 % of Union spending, showed levels (1,3 %) below the 2 % threshold for material level of error; welcomes that for the first time since 1994, the Court issued a qualified opinion on the regularity of the transactions underlying the 2016 accounts;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concern the high estimated level of error in the policy area of ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ at 4,8 %, which is above the threshold for material error and 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 estimate, but is still too high; notes that errors in the area of ‘Economic, social and terror level in the area of ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ is 4,1 %itorial cohesion policy’ are mainly due to the inclusion of ineligible costs in beneficiaries’ declarations, the selection of ineligible projects, activities or beneficiaries and the infringement of public procurement legislation and notes that almost all of the expenditure in this area takes the form of cost reimbursement payments;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes with concern that the estimated error level in the area of ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ is 4,1 % and that most of the errors were related to the reimbursement of ineligible personnel and direct or indirect costs declared by beneficiaries of research projects; stresses the need to take effective measures to reduce those sources of error;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores 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 that if that information had been used to correct errors, the estimated level of error for the overall spending on ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ would have been 1,1 %, i.e. below the 2 % materiality threshold, and for the overall spending on ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ would have been 2,9 %; notes the Court’s recommendation not to introduce additional control in EU spending, but to make sure that the existing control mechanisms are enforced properly;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Is concerned that in the course of the Court’s review of 168 completed projects under the ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ spending area, only one-third had a performance measurement system with output and result indicators linked to the objectives of the operational programme and that 42 % had no result indicators or targets, making it impossible to assess the specific contribution of those projects to the overall objectives of the programme;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes with concern that three years after the start of the 2014 to 2020 period, Member States have designated only 77 % of the programme authorities responsible for implementing the ESI funds, and that delays in budget implementation as of mid-2017 are greater than at the same point in the 2007-2013 period;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. NotEndorses the Court’s recommendation that when reconsidering the design and delivery mechanism for the ESI funds post- 2020, the Commission should strengthen the programme focus on performance and simplify the mechanism for payments by encouraging, as appropriate, the introduction of further measures linking the level of payments to performance instead of simply reimbursing costs.
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that the promotion of a broader use of simplified cost options (SCOs) can lead to the reduction of administrative burdens, to fewer errors than reimbursements of actual costs and a greater focus on performance and results; shares the Court’s recommendation that the Commission should further streamline rules and procedures to reduce legal uncertainty and where appropriate by making increased use of SCOs (such as unit costs, lump sums, flat-rate financing and prices) in the revised Financial Regulation; acknowledges the Commission’s good work in this area to date;