Activities of Mikuláš PEKSA related to 2020/2144(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019, Section V – Court of Auditors
Amendments (16)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Appreciates the fact that the Court willis looking into the suggestion of the 2018 discharge resolution that an independent annual report on the Union institutions should be presented as part of the reflections on the Court’s strategy for the 2021-2025 period, which should be adopted by the end of 2020;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Welcomes the Court’s dedication to prepare the first report on the performance under the Union budget, following the request of the Parliament, aimed at assessing the results achieved from spending under the Union budget and, in particular, by providing an assessment of the performance under each Union policy; believes that performance audit is essential to evaluate the real impact of Union investments; is deeply concerned that Member States are providing the Union institutions with unreliable data, providing an over- optimistic view of the value for money of the funds spent; requests that the Court relies less on audits conducted by Member States but rather conducts more audits itself;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Appreciates that the Court, in accordance with its 2018-2020 strategy, has extended its contacts with researchers, academia and think-tanks and that the Court has as of 1 June 2020 seconded 15 staff members to other international institutions; notes that the Court regularly hosts staff seconded from other international bodies and that the Court also provided 55 internships (compared to 60 in 2018) for university graduates for periods of three to five months; notes that, in 2019, six internships were unpaid; asks the Court to offer an allowance to interns that covers at least their living costs, even in the case of short-term internships; welcomes the fact that the Court entered into several partnerships with universities and professional organisations with a view to future cooperation;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Appreciates the fact that the Court’s activities related to staff well-being such as the Court’s network of confidential contact persons across the organisation to provide professional, and, if requested, anonymous support to members of staff; notes that the Court also provides free access to psychologists;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Welcomes the setup of the Digital Steering Committee with the aim to move forward with the digital transformation of the audit under an initiative called “ECA audit goes digital”; notes that in 2019, the ECA Lab supported ten audit tasks, including a pilot on using big data for performance audit; asks the Court to report to the Parliament on any obstacles encountered while requesting data in a machine readable format from Union institutions;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the fact that the Court's Decision No 6-2019 on the open data policy and the reuse of documents was published in April 2019 and that the Court’s IT systems are based on solid architectural principles that take into account a cost/benefit approach in relation to mainstream technologies procured inter- institutionally; notwelcomes that open source technologies are used at the Court in accordance with those principles; encourages the Court to prioritise open source technologies in order to prevent vendor lock-in, retain control over its own technical systems, provide stronger safeguards for the privacy and data protection of users and increase security and transparency for the public;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Encourages the Court to follow the EDPS recommendations to renegotiate the Inter-Institutional Licensing Agreement and implementation contract, signed between the Union institutions and Microsoft in 2018, with the objective of achieving digital sovereignty, avoid vendor lock-in and lack of control, and ensure the protection of personal data;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Asks the Court to explore the possibility ofStrongly recommends the Court to joining the transparency registry on the basis of a service level agreement; acknowledges the inter- institutional cooperation through service level agreements between the Court and other Union institutions and bodies; is interested to know if any cost benefit analysis takes place before entering into any agreement;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Welcomes the administrative arrangement signed in 2019 between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Court in order to provide a structured framework for co-operation between OLAF and the Court, and to facilitate their timely exchange of information under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/201361a and the Court’s decisions related to internal investigations; notes that this arrangement also contains provisions on non-operational issues such as the organisation of training sessions, workshops and exchange of staff; notes that in 2019, the Court reported ten cases of suspected fraud compared to nine cases in 2018 (eight identified in the course of audit work and two denunciations made by third parties); asks the Court to report back to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control on how these suspected fraud cases were handled and resolved by the respective authorities in charge; _________________ 61a Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (EUT L 248 af 18.9.2013, s. 1).
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31 a. Notes that the Court makes use of the following proprietary social media channels: LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and that social media posts about the Court’s publications were displayed nearly 24 million times, more than four times higher than in 2018; notes that the number of followers increased by 31 %; encourages the Court to establish a presence on free and open- source social media networks, such as Mastodon, to achieve further transparency and broader outreach;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Recognises that the Court applies a set of key performance indicators to monitor progress made, such as for example measuring the implementation rate of the Court’s recommendations; notes that the Court’s analysis showed that 96 % of the recommendations made in the 2015 annual report and 94 % of the recommendations made in the 2015 special reports have been implemented in full, mostly or in some respects; notes that the Court issued six annual reports, three opinions, 18 audit previews and four other publications, being part of the altogether 67 publications it issued in 2019; invites the Court to consider reviewing its key performance indicators to improve its reporting with the aid of better defined targets;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Notes that the Court of Justice found that Mr Pinxten breached the Court’s Code of Conduct for the Members of the Court by abusing of the rights and privileges attached to his position in the context of activities unrelated to his duties, by leaving for unjustified absences and failing to declared external activities, transmitting confidential information in an unauthorised fashion, as well as being in a conflict of interest; welcomes the fact that the Court asked OLAF to conduct an investigation, brought the case before the Court of Justice and is committed to comply with the recommended sanctions to recover all losses to the Union budget;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38 a. Is deeply concerned that Mr Opioła was nominated by the Polish government and then appointed to the Court by the Council despite a very large majority of the Parliament (536 to 156 votes) being against his candidacy based on his involvement in national politics, his clear lack of experience with respect to budgetary control and his previous misuse of state property for political campaign purposes;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes that members are authorised to use official vehicles in the performance of official duties; notes that the use of official cars for other journeys is additional to the performance of such duties and that since 1 January 2017, the costs and kilometres related to the use of official cars have decreased significantly; notes that new rules entered into force on 1 January 2020 and introduced a monthly EUR 100 contribution for the non-official use of the vehicles as well as a liability on the part of the members and the secretary-general for certain costs and charges; is of the opinion that the Court vehicles should only be used for official use; asks the Court to reconsider the new rules on the use of vehicles, as the monthly fee is not proportionate to the real costs to the Union budget;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Highlights the fact that the supreme audit institutions of Poland and Croatia carried out a significant peer review of the Court’s ethical framework; notes that in the opinions of the peers the Court’s ethics control system should be further improved by a more comprehensive assessment of ethics risks, greater consistency and clarity in its rules on ethics, and improved information and communication activities; calls for enhanced mutual cooperation with the future Independent Ethics Body (IEB), generating a steady information exchange within the respective mandates of the Court and the IEB;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Calls on the Court to provide information on any decisions taken related to the process of reviewing and amending the code of conduct for its members; supports the conclusions of the peer review with respect to the need to introduce regular updates of declarations of interest, which would increase their reliability; is in agreement that the ethics committee plays a crucial role to the extent that the president and the members may seek its advice on any question pertaining to ethics and on the interpretation of the code of conduct; notes, moreover, that the committee is entrusted with approving any external activity undertaken by the members, including former members who intend to carry out an activity in the year after they leave the Court, which is an efficient tool in ensuring the absence of conflicts of interest.