64 Amendments of Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ related to 2022/2081(DEC)
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the RRF's contribution to preventing a strong economic downturn following the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that the RRF has beenis instrumental in making progress with the implementation of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) stemming from the European Semester in almost all Member States; notes however that several CSRs remain unaddressed, despite the financial incentives stemming from the RRFmake European economies and societies more sustainable, resilient and better prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the green and digital transitions; notes that the recovery and resilience plans will drive the Member States’ reform and investment agenda for the years to come, while the European Semester, with its broader scope and multilateral surveillance, will usefully guide and complement the implementation of the recovery and resilience plans;
Amendment 51 #
16. Is concerned by the findingNotes the findings and conclusions of the Court in its first annual assessment of the RRF; considerunderstands that the implementation of the RRF takes place under time pressure, with however a much more straight forward delivery model that puts much, lighter requirements on the Commission, and reduces the control burden from the Commission towards the Member States, in particular in comparison with the cohesion policy; is therefore concerned by the types of findings of the Court which fundamentally calls into question whether the Commission can handle even this reduced control burden; calls on the Commission not to apply, in comparison with the cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to assess the advantages and disadvantages of theis performance -based delivery model as used in the implementation of the RRF for other policies until the advantages and disadvantages are more clear, followingpart of the evaluation of the implementation of the RRF due by 20 February 2024;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the agreement reached in the inter-institutional negotiations on RePowerEU on the bi-annual publication of the 100 biggest final beneficiaries per Member State on the RRF Scoreboard; reiterates its call for the list of all final beneficiaries and projects to be made available to auditors andto make the data at the Commission's disposal available in the framework of discharge, for the discharge authority;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Expresses concern about the limited number of cross-border projects under the RRF, which calls into questionle understands that the main focus of the RRF has been to support economic recovery in the EU Member States after the COVID-19 pandemic; stresses that the alignment of the national recovery and resilience plans with the EU policy objectives materialises the Union added value of this instrument;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Notes that the Commission applies controls to the EU budget both before and after payments have been made, and makes corrections if and when necessary; notes that this control system is reflected in both the ‘risk at payment’, which is an estimation of the level of expenditure that is not in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations at the time of the payment, and the ‘risk at closure’ (of the programme), which estimates the level of expenditure that is not in compliance when all controls and related corrections have been completed and, legally, no further action can be taken; further notes that the Commission’s estimated risk at closure is of 0.8%, well below the 2% materiality threshold;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that the Court divides their audit population into high risk (mainly reimbursement based payments) and low risk (mainly entitlement based payments) expenditure; notes with concern however, that the Commission in its Annual Management and Performance Report categorises the expenditure into higher, medium and lower risk segments; emphasis, notes that the use of different risk categories by the Court and the Commission impedes the work of the discharge authority in making a comparative analysis of the respective reports; notes with concern the discrepancy between the Court’s calculation of high-risk expenditure as 63.2 % compared to Commission’s calculation of 22 %Commission’s analysis of where the risks are is based on checks performed by national authorities, other partners and the Commission itself every year, at the most granular level;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes that, despite the factRecalls that the objective of the Court’s audit of the RRF was to contribute to the statement of assurance and provide the basis for its opinion on the regularity of 2021 RRF expenditure; notes that the audit population comprised the only 2021 disbursement, a payment to Spain, and the clearing of the related pre- financing; welcomes that the Court considers the RRF expenditure accepted in the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 as legal and regular in all material reaspects, there i; notes that the Court considers one milestone in the payment to Spain that ias not satisfactorily fulfilled, casting doubt on the Commission’s assessment of the milestone and targets associated with the related RRF expenditure; recalls that the only reason the identified error was not quantified was the absence of a methodology for partial payments by the Commissionwhich was found to be non-material error;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – point e
Paragraph 43 – point e
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 a (new)
Paragraph 121 a (new)
121 a. Stresses that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic abruptly changed the economic and social outlook in the Union and commends the united effort that led to the agreement in December 2020 of the recovery package for Europe, namely the 2021-2027 Multinannual Financial Framework and the European Recovery Instrument 'Next Generation EU', of which the cornerstone is the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); recalls that the Regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF Regulation) was approved by Parliament on 9 February 2021 and adopted by the Council on 11 February 202, laying down the objectives, financing and rules for accessing the RRF funding;
Amendment 203 #
121 b. Stresses that the specific objective of the RRF is to provide Member States with financial support with a view to achieving reforms and investments in order to mitigate the serious economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and make European economies and societies more sustainable, resilient and better prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the green and digital transitions;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 c (new)
Paragraph 121 c (new)
121 c. Recalls that the RRF is a temporary recovery instrument based on performance, i.e. payments are linked to the satisfactory fulfilment of a group of milestones and targets reflecting progress on several reforms and investments of the national recovery and resilience plans; recalls that Member States were also required to provide the estimated cost of the proposed measures, together with supporting documentation;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 d (new)
Paragraph 121 d (new)
121 d. Highlights that the RRF Regulation provides that the reforms and investments included in each of the recovery and resilience plans must reach targets for climate and digital expenditure and contribute appropriately to the six pillars or policy areas of European relevance; recalls that each national plan should effectively address challenges identified in the European Semester, particularly the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council; stresses the added value of the RRF supporting an unprecedented agenda of reforms and investments to address the specific challenges Member States are facing;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 123
Paragraph 123
123. Notes the Commission’s activities to issue securities on the international capital markets necessary to fund the RRF'Next Generation EU' Recovery Instrument, for which the Commission raised, by the end of 2021, EUR 71,0 billion of long-term funding and EUR 20 billion of short-term funding; notes the issuing of the first NGEU green bond with a value of EUR 12,0 billion, that requires implementation of reporting on the precise use of proceeds green bonds and on the impact of investments; recalls the issues concerning performance reporting identified by the Court and the reputational and financial risks that this can bring for the green bonds; considers that the first interest costs have been incurred for these borrowed amounts, including a negative interest rate of over EUR 20 billion in deposit at the ECB; notes the introduction of interest rate risk for the Union budget because of NGEU’s funding needs;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
Paragraph 122
122. Notes that the Commission approved 22 National Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs) in 2021, committing EUR 154 billion in loans and EUR 291 billion in grants; notes that the Commission disbursed pre-financing for loans with a total value of EUR 18 billion, with the biggest two recipients being Italy (EUR 15,9 billion) and Greece (EUR 1,65 billion); recalls that the Council's approval of the NRRPs enabled the Member States to receive pre-financing up to 13 % of the financial contribution; notes that the Commission disbursed pre- financing for grants with a total value of EUR 36,3 billion, with the biggest two recipients being Spain (EUR 9,04 billion) and Italy (EUR 8,95 billion); notes that the Commission disbursed one payment, to Spain, with a value of EUR 10,0 billion; notes that the payment to Spain was accompanied by the clearing of EUR 1,5 billion of pre-financing of the EUR 9,04 billion received as pre-financing by that Member State, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the financing agreement between the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
Paragraph 124
124. Notes the Court’s observation regarding the RRF in its 2021 Annual Report concerning the first payment request fromRRF and the only payment made in 2021, to Spain; notes that the Court assessexamined the Commission’s ex-ante work on all milestones associated with theis payment to Spain in 2021; observes that it will not be possible for the Court to assess all milestones associated with future payment; observes that the Court had not been able to examine other payments in 2021, and will not be able to assess all milestones associated with future payments to all Member States, which will have an impact on its future analyses;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. Is worried byNotes the Court’'s serious findingconclusion that, for the payment made to Spain in 2021, one of the 52 milestones was not satisfactorily fulfilled; regrets to, although this is not considered by the Court as a material error; notes that the element identified by the Court was not able to quantify this error because of the absence of a methodology to quantify the impact of (partially) not achieving afulfilled is not in the milestone, but is contained in the description of the measure, which is a separate part of the CID as per Article 20(5)(c) of the RRF Regulation, and whose elements are not always relevant for the Commission's assessment on the satisfactory fulfilment of milestone ors and targets; notes the Commission’s Internal Auditor also obshighlights that the Commission considers that the concervned the absence of this methodology; considers it grave negligence of the Commission to not have this methodology in place before making payments, as this calls into question the Commission’s sincerity of assessing the satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targelement is not directly or indirectly referred to in the milestone, nor is directly or indirectly relevant for the fulfilment of that milestone; understands, therefore, that it cannot be considered as a basis for assessing this milestone as not having been satisfactorily mets;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125 a (new)
Paragraph 125 a (new)
125 a. Notes that the Commission’s Internal Auditor had observed in its 2021 Overall Opinion on Commission financial management as an emphasis of matter the need for the timely development of a methodology to quantify the impact of partially not achieving a milestone or target; commends the Commission's work in rectifying this situation and welcomes the publication of such methodology on 21 February 2023, which will allow the Commission to determine, when necessary in the future, the amount to be suspended if a milestone or target is not satisfactorily fulfilled, in full respect of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality; observes that the calculation of the suspended amount will reflect both the performance-based nature of the RRF and the unique combination of reforms and investments, as well as the fact that not all measures contribute equally to the realisation of the objectives of a NRRP;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
Paragraph 126
126. Notes that the Commission’s Internal Audit Service did not performstarted any audit engagement as regards the NGEU programme in 2021; notes that following the work done the Internal Auditor draws in its 2021 Overall Opinion on Commission financial management also attention to the need to continue work on control design and implementation of appropriate financial management, and audit and control strategies; considers the Internal Auditor to be an essential element of internal checks and balances within the Commission and that independent and objective information derived from its own audit activities is indispensable for the Internal Auditor to function effectively; underlines that according to international internal audit standards the work by the Court as external auditor cannot substituted the work of the Internal Audit Service; should be coordinated;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 127
Paragraph 127
127. Recalls the CONT committee’s opinion to the committee on Budgets and the committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation establishing the RRF; recalls the call therein for a list of all final beneficiaries andthe Member States to keep records of the economic operators and their beneficial owners for the purpose of audit and control, as well as a call for a list of all final beneficiaries of the Facility in full compliance with data projtects of the Facility; considers that Article 22(2) (d) of that Regulation puts the requirement on the Member States to keep these records, and that the provisions in Article 22(3) call for making the data concernedion regulation; welcomes that the RRF Regulation adopted by the EU co- legislators follows this line, as its Article 22(2) (d) puts the requirement on the Member States to keep these records (i) for the purpose of audit and control and (ii) to provide for comparable information on the use of funds; notes, furthermore, that the provisions in Article 22(3) call for making the personal data only processed by Member States and by the Commission for the purpose of discharge, audit and control proceedings, as well as for making the data at the Commission's disposal available in the framework of discharge, for the discharge authority;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 127 a (new)
Paragraph 127 a (new)
127 a. Recalls that, in line with the national ownership of the recovery and resilience plans, the principal responsibility for the protection of the financial interests of the Union and the Member State under the RRF lies with the national authorities, which have the obligation to collect data on final recipients; notes that this data may be requested by national control, investigative and audit bodies or, at EU level, as per Article 22(2)(e) of the RRF Regulation by the Commission as well as OLAF, EPPO, and the European Court of Auditors;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
128. Welcomes the agreement reached in the inter-institutional negotiations on the RePowerEU onRegulation amending the RRF Regulation to make it mandatory for the Member States the bi-annual publication of the 100 biggest beneficiaries of RePowerEU and the RRF in each Member State by February 2024 at the latest; considers however that this does not replace the requirement to provide the list of all final beneficiaries and projects to auditors and the discharge authority for every financial yearnotes that in the guidance adopted on 1 February 2023, the Commission has invited the Member States to publish such a list as soon as April 2023 to increase the transparency on the RRF;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130
Paragraph 130
130. Notes the Commission’s approach to adherence to procurement and state aid rules in the investments under the RRP is to rely on national systems, and revert to infringement procedures when cases of non-compliance in Member States are detected; considers that the protection of the Union financial interests is not timely guaranteed and does not necessarily target the beneficiariacknowledges that the first responsibility in this regard lies with the Member States, that enjoyed an unfair advantage of the cases of non- compliance; acknowledges that the first responsibility in this regard lies with the Member Statare obliged to put in place suitable control systems and compliance with all relevant national and European legislation, including procurement and State aid rules; recalls the repeated findings by the Court as reflected in previous discharge reports that the work of certain national authorities isor certifying bodies is considered too error- prone and thus unreliable; stresses therefore that the Commission has the residual responsibility to make sure that effective and efficient internal control systems are in place, and to step in where Member States do not act as is required by the RRF Regulation; welcomes in that regard the Commission’s audit strategy and the launch in 2022 of system audits on the Protection of Financial Interest of the EU in 16 Member States, as well as the plans to cover all Member States by the end of 2023;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131
Paragraph 131
131. Is concerned that differences in the quality of controls and the complexity of the control systems applied by the Member States could risk of resulting in a less effectivedeficiencies in internal control system for the funds available under the RRF; is concerned by repeated warnings byrecalls that OLAF, the EPPO, Europol and other competent bodies warn that a less effective internal control system could attracts misuse, fraud and organised crime;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 132
Paragraph 132
132. Recalls that the RRF must be implemented by the Commission in direct management in accordance with the relevant rules adopted pursuant to Article 322 TFEU, in particular the Financial Regulation and the Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget; reiterates that the effectiveness of the rule of law conditionality mechanism in part rests on information stemming from audits and investigations at Union level and not having this information available will make the mechanism less effective;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133
Paragraph 133
133. Notes that the Commission’s reporting on the implementation of the RRF on has established the RRF scoreboard, as stipulated by Article 30 of the RRF Regulation; notes that most of the reporting so far, in order to display the progress of the implementation of the NRRPs; observes that the reporting so far display achieved results across countries, pillars and milestones and targets, in particular on the 14 common indicators, is about expected results and notdentified by the Commission, the Member States and Parliament; notes that part of the reporting is about achievexpected results; and recalls that this same issue was identified by the Court in its Special Rreport 09/2022 on Cclimate Sspending;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
Paragraph 134
134. Notes the RRF scoreboard on which the Commission reports progress on the implementation of the RRF;Considers the information presented on the RRF scoreboard as useful and readable considersing the information presented useful; is however worried that it is not sufficient to establish actual performance of the RRF; considers that actual achieved progress on the indicators, not just budgeted or expected, should be presentedvast amount of information available; commends in particular the inclusion of a detailed list of fulfilled milestones and targets indicators that displays the RRF achieved progress across Member States and policy pillars;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135
Paragraph 135
135. Acknowledges that the SRRF scoreboard contains a complete and useful repository of official documents that gives insight in the most important agreements reached with the Member States in the National RRPs and related documents; regrets however, such as the Commission preliminary assessment of payments to Member States; notes that the RRF Scoreboard does not allows tracing financial flows from Union- level to the level of the final beneficiaries in theMember States as beneficiaries of the RRF according to Article 22 (1) of the RRF Regulation, in particular the grants and loans allocated and disbursed to each Member States, and does notthus provides a clear overview of the actual implementation of the RRF in that regard;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. Considers that the element of Union funding being additional to national funding is not satisfactorily and clearly communicated by the Commission, and that it cannot be excluded with certainty that money from the RRF is used to replace national expenditure; considers an analysis of national expenditure is necessary to see if the funding made available through the RRF is truly additional and was not used to substitutein Article 4 (2) of the RRF Regulation which stipulates that the specific objective of the RRF is to provide Member States with financial support; understands that it is prohibited with certainty that money from the RRF is used to replace recurring national budgetary expenditure in accordance with the Article 5(1) of the RRF Regulation; recalls in this regard that the payments to Member States depend on the fulfilment of milestones and targets of the NRRPs, which excludes recurring national budgetary expenditure, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the RRF Regulation; considers in this regard that it is unclear what has happened with the payments and pre- financing received by Member States for which no investment related costs were incurred yet; notes that the Commission developed guidelines to frame the interpretation of double funding and provided Member States with clear information to ensure synergies and avoid double funding; notes further that Member States report on the funding received from other funds for the measures under the RRF;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 137
Paragraph 137
137. Recalls that keeping documentation supporting payments is an important principle of sound financial management; is very worried by the finding of the Court that the audit trail was insufficient to cover all elements considered relevant in the assessment process of milestones and targetin the case of two milestones for the first payment request; recalls in particular the Court’s findings regarding milestone 215 and the Commission’s reply to this finding, suggestexplaining that there was at least an analysis performed Commission positive assessment was based on a thorough analysis of the content of the DATAESTUR website, including screenshots taken in October and November 2021; notes the Commission recognition that the registration of these screenshots did not take place in line with the internal guidance and that improvements in record-keeping could be made; recalls the written question of the discharge authority requesting this analysis and the staggering reply from the Commission that there was ‘it did not write a detailed report on this matter so has no ‘analysis’ to be provided, but that ‘several Commission staff reviewed the DATAESTUR site and confirmed that the required information was present’; concludes that such method of walls on the Commission to ensure suficient audit trail recorkding is a flagrant violationthe assessment of milestones and calls ofn the principle of sound financial management; Court to follow this issue in its future audits;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138
Paragraph 138
138. Notes that the declaration of assurance of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs for 2021 is different from the declaration of assurance of all other Directorate-Generals; notes that the declaration concerns the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, which is aligned with the other Directorates-General; notes further that ‘the implementation of Article 22(5) of the RRF Regulation’, is added; notes the Commission’s reply to written questions from the discharge authority that ‘it is different only in format but not as regards the level of assurance provided’; questions why it was then necessary to explicitly limit the assurance tounderstands that Article 22(5) of the RRF Regulation, and not to provide assurance over Article 22 in its entirety; concludes that the declaration of assurance by the Commission as guardian of the Treaty, in particular as regards protection of the Union financial interests and accountability towards taxpayers, must be trustworthy and cannot leave any room for doubt that the Commission were to evade its responsibility through diverging declarations of individual auth overall relates to obligations for the Member States, including elements to be included in the financing agreements, while Article 22(5) provides for the Commission to intervene in cases of fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interests affecting the financial interests of the Union that have not been corrected by the Member State, or a serious breach of an obligation resulting from the financing agreements; takes note, in addition, of the Commission's reply that it assures, both through an initial assessment of each RRP, as well as audits of the systems that Member States have put in place to protect the financial interests of the Union, that each Member State implements the necessary monitorising officerand control systems;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 139
Paragraph 139
139. Notes the Court’s observations in its Review 01/2023 on Union financing through cohesion policy and the RRF that address the complementarity of both funding stems; notes in particular that during the 2014-2020 period, the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund already provided an equivalent of around 10 % of total public investment across the EU-27 and that the RRF will further increase the share of EU- financed public investments in Member States; recalls in this regard the Court’s finding that the absorption rate for Cohesion was exceptionally low in 2021, explained by the combined impact on the managing authorities of the late adoption in mid-2021 of the CPR and fund-specific regulations, the programming of REACT- EU, and the implementation of other emergency measures;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 140
Paragraph 140
140. Notes the Court’s conclusion that in Member States where the share of EU- financed public investments is already high, the additional RRF funding may further add to the pressure on Member States’ ability to spend the funds available to them; recalls that the RRF is implemented under direct management, while cohesion policy funds are implemented under shared management, which means that EU and Member State authorities have different responsibilities in connection witheach source of funding; is worried that because of the different delivery methods, with direct management for the RRF and shared management for the cohesion policy, the more straight forward implementation method of the RRF willmay ‘crowd-out’ the more complex funding through cohesion; notes that this will come at the detriment of the involvement of local authorities and regions, civil society organisations and economic and social partners in Union funding;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 141
Paragraph 141
141. Is worried by the negligible contribution of the RRF to cross-border cooperation, especially considering the amounts of Union funding involvedObserves that according to the Commission Staff Working Documents, twenty Member States foresee cross- border projects in their NRRPs and notes that the amounts invested per Member State vary widely; is worried by the negligible contribution of the RRF to cross-border cooperation, especially considering the amounts of Union funding involved; takes into account, however, that a stronger focus on cross-border projects would have required more time for planning and implementation as well as a clear incentive mechanism for Member States, in addition to the fact that other EU funds might be better designed to implement cross-border projects; welcomes that in its January 2021 guidance, the Commission offered to provide interested Member States a coordination platform to assist in setting up cross-border projects;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 142
Paragraph 142
142. Notes the Court’s findings in its special report 21/2022 on “The Commission’s assessment of National RRPs - Overall appropriate but implementation risks remain”; observes that the Court's assessment is based on a sample of six Member States; welcomes the Court's conclusion that the Commission’s assessment of the NRRPs was overall appropriate given the complexity of the process and the time constraints, although a number of weaknesses in the process and risks for the successful implementation of the RRF were also identified; welcomes the fact that the Commission accepts the Court's recommendations and also notes that the Commission considers that some of the risks and limitations highlighted stem from the design of the RRF itself;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 143
Paragraph 143
143. Is worried that the Court found that there were gaps in addressing the 2019 and 2020 Country Specific Recommendations in the National RRPs ; notes that the Court assessed that RRPs of relatively small Member States did not coNotes the Court's observation that important aspects of the Country Specific Recommendations remained unaddressed across the Member States, in particular those of 2019, representain gaps, whereas the Court assessed that the RRPs of the bigger Member States contain serious gaps; is worried the ‘negotiations’ observed by the Court in agreeing on the RRPs leads to inequality in treatment of Member States; questions in addition whether important partsg recurrent structural changes; recalls that the Commission's assessment of the relevance of the NRRPs includes the contribution to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the relevant CSR; welcomes that a link has been made between the IT systems used by Member States to report ofn the CSRs, which even with the RRF’s financial incentives are not taken up by the Member States, will ever be implemented and on RRPs respectively, to ensure adequate reporting and to avoid duplication of work;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 144
Paragraph 144
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145
Paragraph 145
145. Notes the statements made by Commission representatives that all payments will go towards the investments made under the RRF, so that afat the Commission assessed the estimated total costs of the NRRPs on the basis of the criter ia certain time lag where instalments are paid out for reforms as well, by August 2026, the total amount of payments will have been spent on investments; recalls the Court’s finding that the Commission, in its assessment of all National RRPs , gave a ‘B-rating’ for the cost estimates of these investments, calling into question the accuracy of the amounts involved; underlines in the light of the Commission’s statement the problematic fact that of front-loading reforms and back-loading investments in the RRPs; reiterates its concern that this only amplifies the risk that Member States might not request the last payment tranche, and thus might fail to fulfil all reforms and investments after having receivedmentioned in the Annex V of the RRF Regulation, namely relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence; notes that the RRF Regulation does not specify how these four criteria should be consolidated into an overall rating for costs and welcomes that the Commission developed a rating system for each one a as well as for the consolidated overall rating to ensure fair treatment; observes that the Commission required each Member State to improve its cost estimates and submit additional evidence and justification until the plargest part of their total financial support under the RRF; emphasises that the discharge authority cannot wait to receive full clarity on the proper use of Union funds until after the end of the RRFusibility and reasonability of the costestimate reached at least a ‘B’, which allow the NRRPs to be put forward to the Council for adoption;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146
Paragraph 146
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146 a (new)
Paragraph 146 a (new)
146 a. Notes with satisfaction the commitment of Spanish authorities to not compromise or reduce the control of the NRRP implementation and the protection of the Union financial interests by no means; welcomes in this regard the solid control system put in place by the Spanish authorities based on several layers and including internal and external audit and control bodies, as well as digitalised systems for control (CoFFEE) and for prevention of conflict of interests (Minerva); takes note of the significant preparation, invested efforts, training and elaboration of supporting documentation, all of which have been made available in short time for the successful functioning of the two control related systems; calls on the Commission to continue to use examples of national good practices such as this when providing technical support to Member States in the implementation of the NRRPs;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146 b (new)
Paragraph 146 b (new)
146 b. Notes with satisfaction the measures undertaken by the Spanish authorities for avoidance of double funding and the requirement for funding a project only from one instrument (RRF or ESIF); takes note that the Union funds are managed separately and independently from the national budget; notes further that CoFFEE system in addition to its role for control and audit trail provides information for the financial implementation of the RRF funding;
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146 c (new)
Paragraph 146 c (new)
146 c. Welcomes the excellent cooperation between Spain and the Commission to put in place and implement requirements related to the control of the RRF which has helped to further improvement of the national system, as well as to learn lessons useful for other countries; notes the commitment of the Spanish authorities to give access to the national digitalised systems to the Commission, the Court and EPPO in accordance with article 22 of the RRF Regulation;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 147
Paragraph 147
147. Is worried by the Court’s observation that certain milestones and targets lack clarity; shares the Court’s concern that the absence of clear definitions of milestones and targets implies the risk that these milestones and targets are difficult to assess and the related risk that the initially aimed at objective was not fulfilled; underlines that this leaves the Commission with a large margin of discretion when assessing whether a vaguely defined milestone and target was “sufficiently” achieved; notes in this regard the observation of the Court that miasks the Commission to draw the lestsone 395 in the first payment request from Spain was not satisfactorily fulfilled; notes the Commission’s reply that the element that the Court considered as not fulfilled is not part of the milestone, but is contained in the description of the measures from the experience of the RRF and reflect on the possibility to develop a standardised methodology for the definition of milestones and targets;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 148
Paragraph 148
148. Is worried byNotes the finding of the Court that milestones and targets are often based on output and even input indicators, which limits as well as its observation that impact indicators have by definition a longer time horizon, which may not be well suited to the limited timeframe for implementing the RRF; takes note of the Court's opinion that avoiding impact indicators will limit the possibility of measuring the performance of measures and ultimately their impact on the Unionrather general EU policy objectives of the RRF;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149
Paragraph 149
149. Notes the Court’s finding that the Commission’s assessment of RRPs was often based on arrangements not yet in place; notes in this regard the Court’s finding that the Commission included additional milestones and targets to be achieved before the first payment in order to adopt the NRRP; is worried that not having a fully functional monitoring system in place at the start of the implementation of the RRP risks that milestones and targets in reality may not have been fulfilled until the milestones and that its assessment contributed to improving the quality of milestones and targets; notes the Court observation that the controls systems oin monitoring are fulfilled; highlights the fact that the monitoring systems or implementing bodiesthe sampled Member States at the time of the assessment were partly not yet in place, at the time the RRPs were approved also limited the Commission’s assessment of their administrative capacity; notes furthers well as the Court's conclusion that the ‘A’ rating for all NRRPs in this aregard the Court’s finding that even on audit and control arrangements, the last resort in terms of reliability of information, an A rating was given despite several measures not being in placa is at least partly explained by the fact that the RRF Regulation only allowed for either an ‘A’ (adequate) or a ‘C’ (insufficient) rating with a ‘C’ resulting in the rejection of the RRP as a whole; recalls that adequate audit and control structures are a prerequisite for receiving funds from the RRF;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150
Paragraph 150
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152 – point a
Paragraph 152 – point a
a. develop an effective methodology to sample milestones and targets for which it willin case it decides to re-assess the Commission’s assessment, since it will not have the resources to check all milestones and all targets of all payment requests in the future; considers that this methodology should effectively identify milestones and targets that have a higher risk of non- fulfilment;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point b
Paragraph 153 – point b
b. mtake the list of all final beneficiaries and projects of RRF funding available to auditors and the discharge authority for all payments (in 2021 and throughout the implementation of the RRF)steps to operationalise the new obligation on Member States to publish the 100 final recipients receiving the highest amount of RRF funding;
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point c
Paragraph 153 – point c
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point d
Paragraph 153 – point d
d. apply additional vigilance towhether there are signals of organised crime targeting the funds available under the RRF together with EUROPOL, the EPPO, OLAF and other relevant actors;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point e
Paragraph 153 – point e
e. make clear that all projects and measures described in any RRPsfunded by any NRRPs of Member States participating in enhanced cooperation pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, are to be considered as financed by European money from the RRF, and thus fall under the scope of the EPPO;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point f
Paragraph 153 – point f
f. explain and duly justify to the discharge authority why the Internal Auditor has not performed internal audit engagements related to the RRFrequests, especially in light of the Internal Auditor’s risk assessment as the basis for its audit planning, wherethat the implementation of the RRF should continue to feature prominently in its audit plans, given its innovative character and high financial stakes;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point g
Paragraph 153 – point g
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point i
Paragraph 153 – point i
i. publish bi-annually on the RRF scoreboard a link to the NGEU financing website that contains the amounts borrowed to fund the RRF, and the interest incurred to pay for the borrowed amounts; also publish on the RRF the amounts of interest paid by the Member States to the Commission on the loans made available to them under the RRF;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point j
Paragraph 153 – point j
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point k
Paragraph 153 – point k
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point l
Paragraph 153 – point l
l. only accept milestones and targets for which is has received documentation supporting its implementation, and not just statements of Member States; requests in that regard a re-assessment of the fulfilment of milestone 215 in the Spanish payment request by a qualified IT-expert, accompanied by a declaration of assurance by an IT-auditor, taking account of the requirements of the milestone and its related measure, and the statements of the Commission in its assessment that the milestone has been satisfactorily fulfilledensure sufficient audit trail recording which cover all elements considered relevant in the assessment process of milestones;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point m
Paragraph 153 – point m
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point n
Paragraph 153 – point n
n. closely monitor fulfilment of milestones and targets, given negative experience with the first payment request handled by the Commission, and the non- satisfactory fulfilment of one milestone, in particular also those where additional milestones were considered necessary forrelated to audit, monitoring and control purposes;
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point o
Paragraph 153 – point o
o. discontinue the practice of assessingcheck not just the set-up but also the actual functioning of Member States’ future audit and control arrangements and in cases where this has already been agreed, to check not just the set-up but also the actual functioningwhile identifying areas that could be improved or made more efficient;
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point q
Paragraph 153 – point q
q. re-perform the Court’s analysis of payment profiles from Special Report 21/2022 for all payment profiles of all Member States and report to the discharge authority how each payment request relates to the number of milestones and targets to be fulfilled for each Member State, and to propose measures to guarantee that all reforms and investmenmilestones and targets are completed by 31 August 2026;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point r
Paragraph 153 – point r
r. address the tension between cohesion and the RRF, in particular concerning the involvement of local, regional, economic and social partners and civil society organisations, that makes it easier to absorb risks and challenges arising from the parallel implementation of cohesion and the RRFF funding in comparison to cohesion funding, by putting more emphasis on involvement of these actors in the implementation of the RRFs and to strengthen their complementarity;
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point t
Paragraph 153 – point t
t. include instrengthen, where relevant, its system audits in the Member States for each internal control system (in case of decentralised or implementation methods) a minimum number of 25 tests of individual procurement files under the RRF in order to not just provide assurance on the set-up of the internal control system in all Member States, but also on the effectiveness in practice of the internal control of the systems;
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point u
Paragraph 153 – point u
u. make sure checks on double funding are included in the Member States’ audit and control frameworks for the NGEU, Rural development and Cohesion programmes and to ensure its proper functioning through system checks; calls in addition on the Commission to verify that double funding does not take place by performing risk based checks on all payments to final beneficiaries under these programmes;
Amendment 376 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point v
Paragraph 153 – point v
v. make sure that the reliability of the repositories of the final beneficiaries of the Member States is guaranteed, in particular as regards the integrity and completeness, with a view that once irregularities concerning final beneficiaries are discovered, correct follow-up at Union level is ensured;