Activities of Viola VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL related to 2023/2129(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2022, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Amendments (45)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the importance of the Union budget for achieving the Union’s political priorities, as well as its role in assisting Member States in unforeseen circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, international conflicts or crisis and their consequences; notstresses in this regard the continuurgent need for increasing relevance of investments aimed towards achieving goals set in the EU GreenDeal and support from the Union budget for reducing disparities between Member States and regions, for promoting economic growth and employment, for combating poverty and social exclusion, and thus for improving the daily life of Union citizens;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses the fact that in 2022 the EU has fallen much short of the level of efficiency needed to achieve the climate- related goals set for 2030, 2040 and 2050; urges the Commission not to water down the paste and ambition needed to lower the CO2 emissions and keep the global warming below 1,5% degrees above the pre-industrial times;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the sound and timely implementation of the budget contributes to addressing more efficiently and effectively the needs and challenges in different policy areas; warnstresses that the late implementation of the budget under time pressure mayof the final closure of the 2014 - 2020 MFF lead to an increase in errors and irregularities;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)'s contribution to support Member States in recovering from the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and creating a resilient Union that can shoulder the challenges of the future; notes the contribution of the RRF and RePowerEU in addressing the energy-related challenges caused by the Russia’s war of agression against Ukraine; calls on the Commission and theto monitor Member States to' implementation of the associated actions swiftly in accordance with the agreed milestones and targets;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the importance of carrying out an ex-post evaluation of financial programmes created to respond to a crisis concerning their effectiveness, efficiency regularity of spending, achieved efficiency and effectiveness, relevance, and coherence and Union added value;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomeConsiders the measures undertaken by the Commission in 2022 and 2023 under the Rule of Law conditionality mechanism for the protection of the Union budget andto be inadequate, introduced with considerable delays and introduced following long lasting political considerations instead of acting as the independent and strong guardian of the Treaties; asks the Commission to continue to be vigilant and proactive in the current and future cases when the lack of respect for Union values and the Rule of Law affect or threaten to affect the Union’s financial interests;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the Court’s conclusion that the revenue is free from material error and that the systems for managing the revenue examined by the Court were generally effective; regrets the adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the Union budget expenditure issued by the Court for the fourth year in a rowDeeply regrets the adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the Union budget expenditure issued by the Court for the fourth year in a row; demands the Commission takes all the necessary measures and administrative support to the Member States needed especially to improve their absorption capacity in order to avoid the worsening trend from 2007 - 2013, 2014 - 2020 to the 2020 - 2027 MFF and keeps the Discharge authority fully informed and in timely manner; welcomes the Court’s conclusion that the revenue is free from material error and that the systems for managing the revenue examined by the Court were generally effective;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the Court estimates the level of error for the 2022 expenditure to be 4,2 % (3 % in 2021), which is above the materiality threshold; notes the Commission’s confidence thatown estimate of the risk at payment is estimated at 1.9 % for 2022 (similar to 2020, 2021 and 2022), is representative of the level of error at the time of payment; notes that the Commission’s estimation of the risk at closure, after ex-post controls and corrections have been applied, is 0.9 %; notes the divergence between the Court’s overall error rate and the Commission’s risk at payment, which is observed for the overall Union budget expenditure in 2022, although not in all expenditure areas;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that the general estimate of the level of error in the Union budget, as presented in the Court’s Statement of Assurance, is an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it was not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, and not a measure of fraud or of inefficiency or waste;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that the audit approach and methodology of the Court are based on international audit standards that require the testing of a random, representative sample of transactions that result in an estimate of the error rate; recalls that the Court differentiates between low-risk expenditure, i.e. entitlement-based payments under simplified rules, and high- risk expenditure, i.e. reimbursement-based payments subject to complex rules; notes that for the 2022 expenditure, the Court has selected 66 % of its audit population from the high-risk expenditure (63,2 % in 2021), amounting to EUR 110,1 billion, and 34 % from the low-risk expenditure, amounting to EUR 56,7 billion; notes that the Court’s estimated error rate for 2022 (4,2 %) is mainly driven by ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ (2,5 % of the overall error rate), ‘Natural resources and environment (0,8 %), ‘Neighbourhood and the world’ (0,4 %), and ‘Single market, innovation and digital’ (0,3 %), all of them considered high-risk expenditure areas by the Court; notes that the Commission’s risk at payment for 2022 is 1,9 %;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that Union spending programmes are multiannual by design and their related control systems and management cycles also cover multiple years; recalls that the Commission’s estimates of the risk at closure have a multiannual perspective that takes account of corrections and recoveries over several years; notes that the Commission’s approach is based on hundreds of thousands of tests as defined in control strategies, performed during substantive control and audit work which is primarily aimed at checking compliance with Union rules and regulations, applicable to given programmes, to ultimately establish whether funds need to be recovered from beneficiaries; notes that the range of the risk at payment, determined as part of this approach, resembles most of the Court’s estimated error rate and is considered by the Commission as the best estimate to express the exposure to the Union budget;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 36 – point i a (new)
(i a) undergo an ex-post evaluation of the reliability of their own estimation of the risk at closure for the financial year for which the programs were closed and presents the results of such an evaluation to the Discharge authority;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 – point iv a (new)
Paragraph 49 – point iv a (new)
(iv a) provide detailed explanations to the Budget authority on reasons why the Commision only partially implemented 13 % of the Court’s recommendations from 2019 and has not implemented further 10 % of their recommendations;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 – point -i (new)
Paragraph 66 – point -i (new)
(-i) include extra funds needed for Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe in the draft 2025 budget to improve on the current state where 7 out of 10 high- quality proposals still cannot be funded;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Notes that the Court has examined a sample of 260 transactions covering the full range of spending under MFF Heading 2; notes with great concern that the Court’s estimated overall level of error in ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ in 2022 wasrose to 6,4 %, which isell above the materiality threshold; draws attention to the marked increase in the overall level of error estimated by the Court in 2022 compared to previous years (3,6 % in 2021, 3,5 % in 2020); while the Commission’s estimates of the payment risk for 2022 on the other hand show to be between 1,9 % and 2,7 %, remaining stable compared to previous years (1,9 %-2,5 % in 2021, 2,1 %-2,6 % in 2020);
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Notes that the Court identified an increase in the specific types of errors, such as ineligible costs and projects and infringements of internal market rules, including public procurement and state aid rules, which are the same categori; stresses that these types of ierregularities identified by the Commission and the audit authorities based on their common typologyors present a higher level or risks related to poor governance and corruption; notes that 3 % of the Court’s estimated 6,4 % error rate in Heading 2 is related to 100% co-financed priorities under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII+) which allowed for more flexible spending; notes that the Commission has not found audit evidence of a significant impact overall of the new types of measures and flexibilities introduced on the programme error rates and takes note of the fact that the Commission took measures to prevent such risk;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79
Paragraph 79
79. Notes that complementarity characterises the relation between the cohesion policy funds and the other Union funding instruments; recalls that the cohesion policy funds and the RRF are different in terms of general objectives, timeline, management mode and financing, but highlights that complementarity between them is possible and expected, provided the same costs are not covered twice and points to the Commission to do its utmost to mitigate these risks;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Notes thatAgrees with the Court who considers that the Commission’s desk reviews and compliance audits have inherent limitations in confirming the validity of the residual total error rates reported by audit authorities; takes note of the Commission’s reply that its assessment, based on a combination of desk and on-the- spot audit work covering the different individual programmes and assurance packages, enables it to establish a reasonable and fair estimate of the error rates for each programme, every year, and cumulatively for cohesion policy funds;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
Paragraph 83
83. NotesStresses with great concern that the Court’s finding that the proportion of assurance packages with residual error rates of above 2 % reached a peak of 61 % of the expenditure in the Court’s sample in 2022 compared to 39 % in the previous year, reflecting the persistent shortcomings in the work of the audit authorities; stresses with concern that the Court’s audit results over the last six years demonstrate that the controls currently in place do not yet sufficiently offset the high inherent risk of error in cohesion, and that managing authorities do not always effectively prevent or detect irregularities in expenditure declared by beneficiaries; notes with concern that the errors found by the Court represent significant weaknesses in the audit authorities’ work on verifying the eligibility of expenditures and projects, and the compliance with internal market rules; notes that a part of the residual error rates recalculated by the Court above 2 % in the audited assurance packages are attributable to the aforementioned divergences;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84
Paragraph 84
84. Is greatly concerned about the persistent shortcomings observed by the Court in the national audits, which can be due to inadequate scope, unclear documentation of audits and sample filtering performed by national audit authorities, as well as resource issues, including inadequate funding and a lack of a skilled workforce within national audit authorities; notes that the Commission, on the other hand, considers the work of the majority of the audit authorities to be reliable and that only 7 out of 81 audit authorities need serious improvements;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89 – point i
Paragraph 89 – point i
(i) proactively engage in constructive dialogue with the Court to overcome the growing number of situations where Commission’s official response to the Court’s findings is to ‘agree to disagree’ and continue its cooperation with the Court in order to look for possible comparability of the results of their estimated error rates, as well as to align the interpretation of legal texts;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89 – point iii
Paragraph 89 – point iii
(iii) continue its support to Member States and at the same time prepare an action plan on how to best avoid the administrational over-burden towards the end of the MFF that will come on top of the planned RRF eligibility period, given the completion of the 2014- 2020 programming period and the implementation of the current one, in particular by supporting administrative capacity building;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89 – point iv a (new)
Paragraph 89 – point iv a (new)
(iv a) deliver on its promise to provide both the Discharge authority as well as the general public with the list of EU funds’ biggest final beneficiaries, where such a list considers the final beneficiary to be the natural person or an entity that, as the last in the chain of recipients, receives the EU funds;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Notes the example of an incorrect declaration of agricultural activity presented by the Court in its annual report, quoted in several media as the “lemon trees’ case”, where a farmer declared to cultivate permanent crop, where in reality the plot was not cultivated for several years; notes the financial impact of this error was EUR 8 349,06 as reported by the Commission, along with the corrective actions taken by the responsible national authorities, including the recovery of the claimed amount; commends the thorough audit work of the Court and the Commission and the swift follow-up by the paying agency concerned; stresses though that this case should not be understood as an rare and individual coincidence but rather as a risk of systematic way allowing for fraudulent way to receiving the EU funds and should thus not be underestimated;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Notes that the Court examined a sample of 23 transactions that is not representative enough of the spending under MFF headings 4 and 5 and, therefore, cannot provide an estimate of the error rate; notesstresses with great concern that the Court’s audit results show that the expenditure is affected by eligibility and procurement issues and that it is a high-risk area (11 out of 23 transactions audited, i.e. 48 %, were affected by errors); notes that the Court quantified nine errors which had an impact on the amounts charged to the Union budget and that it also found four cases of non-compliance with legal and financial provisions, which had no impact on the Union budget; notes that the Commission concludes that the risk at payment is below 2% for the expenditure on migration and border management, as well as for security and defence;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 117 – point i a (new)
(i a) focus its controls on expenditure found by the Court to be highly affected by eligibility and procurement issues in 2022 and asks the Court to expand a sample of audited transactions to be able to provide an estimate of the error rate;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119
Paragraph 119
119. Notes that the Court examined a sample of 72 transactions which is not representative enough of the spending under this MFF heading and, therefore, cannot provide an estimate of the error rate; notes that the Court’s audit results show that this is a high-risk area (34 out of 72 transactions audited, i.e. 47 %, were affected by errors); notes that the Court found 25 errors that had a financial impact on the Union budget, relating to ineligible costs, absence of supporting documents, public procurement and expenditure not incurred, areas that could point to risks of reliable functioning of the national authorities’ control mechanism or even the administrative or political willingness to properly execute the EU financial rules;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
Paragraph 122
122. WelcomNotes that the Commission implemented the Court’s recommendations to disclose the limitations of the RER study in DG NEAR’s AARs since 2021, to strengthen checks by identifying and preventing recurrent errors, and for DG NEAR to establish obligations for the RER study contractor to report to the Commission any suspected fraud against the Union budget detected during its work on the RER study;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128 a (new)
Paragraph 128 a (new)
128 a. Notes the Reform Growth Plan for the Western Balkans which was proposed by the Commission to further support convergence efforts in the region; stresses the need for a more clarity on the use of different financial instruments toward the region, primarily among IPA III, Economic and Investment Plan, and the Reform Growth Plan; urges the Commission to provide the sub-national level to have more direct access to EU funds;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130 – point iii a (new)
Paragraph 130 – point iii a (new)
(iii a) ensures the proper, timely and thorough audit, including with the inclusion of the EPPO and European Court of Auditors, of all funds provided under the Ukraine Facility and the upcoming Western Balkans facility;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146
Paragraph 146
146. Recalls that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 abruptly changed the economic and social outlook of the Union and led to a unified effort to launch the recovery package for Europe, consisting of the 2021-2027 MFF and NGEU, of which the cornerstone is the RRF; recalls that the objective of the RRF is to provide Member States with financial support to mitigate the serious economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and make European economies and societies more sustainable, resilient, inclusive and better prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the green and digital transitions; recalls that the RRF is an innovative, temporary instrument based on performance, whichwhere means that payments are linked to the satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targets (M&Ts) reflecting progress on reforms and investments included in the national recovery and resilience plans (RRPs), which are set in a Council Implementation Decision;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 148
Paragraph 148
148. Notes that the REPowerEU Plan was launched in May 2022 to help the Union to reduce its dependency on Russian fossil fuels by saving energy, producing clean energy and diversifying its energy supplies, which is aligned with the green transition; notes that the amendments introduced to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 (‘the RRF Regulation’)11 by Regulation (EU) 2023/435 on REPower EU12 added additional financing and priorities to the RRF; notes that all 27 Member States have submitted modified RRPs to include REPowerEU chapters, but also to request additional loan support, to make adjustments following the update of the maximum financial contribution or to make amendments due to objective circumstances, as enabled by the RRF Regulation; notes that the revision of the RRPs are subject to the same assessment criteria as the original plans, together with specific requirements applicable to the REPowerEU chapters; _________________ 11 OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17–75 12 OJ L 63, 28.2.2023, p. 1–27
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149 a (new)
Paragraph 149 a (new)
149 a. Welcomes the Commission’s estimate that the full implementation of quantifiable milestones and targets up until the end of 2026 funded by NGEU Green Bonds, corresponding to 57% of the NGEU Green Bond eligible expenditure, can reduce GHG emissions by 44 million tonnes of CO2 per annum– equivalent to 1.2% of aggregate 2022 EU GHG emissions - and insists on proper implementation; stresses furthermore the importance that reforms and investments under the Recovery and Resilience Plans meet the climate targets of the regulation and fully respect the “do no significant harm” principle;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151
Paragraph 151
151. Welcomes that the RRF expenditure in 2022 is legal and regular in all material aspects, except for the effects of the quantitative findings in 11 payments and the material error in 6 payments estimated by the Court, which are the basis for its qualified opinion concerning the RRF expenditure; notes that the nature of the RRF spending model relies on the judgeassesments to be made by the Commission and thus, the Court does not provide an error rate but estimates the minimum financial impact of its findings to be below, but close to the materiality threshold;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153
Paragraph 153
153. Notes that the Court considers that a case of double funding occurred in 2022, even though the measure in question does not have any costs attached to it under the RRF; notes the Commission’s observation that, according to the RRF Regulation, ‘double funding’ is explicitly linked to costs and thus, there can be no 'double funding' if the Member State has not submitted any cost estimate as part of its national plan; notes that the Commission underlines that reforms are essential criteria for the Commission's positive assessment of RRPs, but that the inclusion of no-cost reforms does not incre as well ase their financial envelope, although in this way the plans ensure their effective and timely implementationull implementation for the relevant payments;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154
Paragraph 154
154. Notes with concern that the Court also identified several cases of weak design in M&Ts and problems with the reliability of information that Member States included in their management declarations, although the effects of those findings are considered material but not pervasive by the Court; notes that the Commission agrees to review M&Ts provided there is a legal justification to change the elements of a Council Implementing Decision, namely that a Member State submits an amended plan and a legal basis justifies the changes;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 155
Paragraph 155
155. NotStresses that, by end 2022, the Commission reported 6 cases of potential irregularities to OLAF, identified during ex-post audits or from open sources in respect of RRF supported actions; notwelcomes that, in 2022, OLAF disseminated a risk framework for the RRF and provided over 50 fraud awareness- training sessions to Commission departments, agencies and other external partners, including Member States’ authorities;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 a (new)
Paragraph 156 a (new)
156 a. Stresses the fact that the RRF was established as the common EU’s instrument to mitigate the serious economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and make European economies and societies more sustainable, resilient, inclusive and better prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the green and digital transitions and its financial means thus can not be understood as Member States’ own budget resources; emphasizes the crucial role of the Court and the Commission in their proactive ex-ante and ex-post controls in making sure the funds are spend effectively with satisfactory fulfillment of M&Ts;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157
Paragraph 157
157. NotUnderlines that the control framework is tailored to the unique nature of the RRF and built upon two types of controls, namely (i) controls by the Commission to provide reasonable assurance over the legality and regularity of commitments and payments, based on the satisfactory achievement of M&Ts as set in the Council Implementing Decisions approving the RRPs, and (ii) controls by the Member States to ensure adequate protection of the financial interests of the Union as provided in Article 22 of the RRF Regulation;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161
Paragraph 161
161. Notes that the Commission reports that the achievement of M&Ts is broadly on track, after the first year of the RRF's functioning was more focused on the necessary reforms to build the framework for subsequent investment projects to have a higher impact; notes with concern that the Commission reports delays compared to the indicative calendar of payments, due to the process of revising the RRPs in the context of the REPowerEU Plan and implementation challenges Member States are facing, such as administrative capacity issues, investment bottlenecks, and consequences of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, including the energy crisis, unexpected price shocks, shortages of certain materials and high inflation; notes that the Commission is supporting all Member States in accelerating the implementation and revision of their plans, including through the Technical Support Instrument; is concerned that according to the Commission’s RRF 2023 implementation report, 8 Member States have not yet submitted any payment request to the Commission;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161 a (new)
Paragraph 161 a (new)
161 a. Notes that the Commission is supporting all Member States in accelerating the implementation and revision of their plans, including through the Technical Support Instrument; is concerned that according to the Commission’s RRF 2023 implementation report, 8 Member States have not yet submitted any payment request to the Commission;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161 b (new)
Paragraph 161 b (new)
161 b. Stresses the importance of proactive supporting role of the Commission to the Member States towards the ending of the RRF instrument period to best avoid the delays and under- implementation problem, so evidently observed towards the end of MFF period; calls for speedy implementation of recovery and resilience plans, including an evaluation by the Commission regarding the implementation process, barriers and results; is concerned that under-implementation, unless swiftly mitigated, will result in a payment crisis, i.e. a mismatch of payment needs and available space under the MFF payment ceiling in 2026 and 2027;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161 c (new)
Paragraph 161 c (new)
161 c. Is of the opinion that both the Member States and the Commission missed the opportunity to better tailor and align the investments and reforms to the EU policy goals, in particular pertaining to the just and green transition, especially in terms of choosing most impactful investments; regrets in that regard the approval of certain activities financed through the RRF fund included in the green and digital spending components of the Plan do not in reality contribute to more sustainable and green economic transition;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168
168. Notes that, following an explicit demand of the Parliament, the amended RRF Regulation requires Member States to publish information on the 100 final recipients receiving the highest amount of funding under the RRF; notes that all Member States but one have published the required list on the RRF Scoreboard and observes a large variety of the size of the payments both across the Member States and within each country, which is explained by the heterogeneous nature of RRPs; reiterates its demand that the list of final recipients provides the factual natural person or an entity that is the last in a chain of money transfers;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 – point iii a (new)
Paragraph 171 – point iii a (new)
(iii a) pay special attention and on-going dialogue with the Member States so that reforms and investments under the Recovery and Resilience Plans meet the climate targets of the regulation and fully respect the “do no significant harm” principle;