69 Amendments of Ingeborg GRÄSSLE related to 2012/2064(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Court of auditors, as a professional audit institution must apply international audit standards applicable to public sector;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas public auditors, like the Court and the SAIs of the Member States, play an essential role in restoring confidence and trust in and improving EU public accountability, which is carried out in line with the goals of restoring economic growth and strengthening public finances; whereas it is therefore important to situate any discussion of possible reforms of the Court in the broader context of the challenge of improving EU public accountability;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas it is importantessential that the Court of Auditors beis composed of figuremembers who provide, to the highest degree, guarantees of professional competence and independence as required by the Treaty, while avoiding any risks to the reputation of the Court;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas Parliament's opinion falls subject to intense media interest; whereas should persons who had their candidacy previously been publicly and formally repudiatedturned down by Parliament take office as Members of the Court, trust in the institutions concerned would be weakened;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas amembers with professional auditing knowledge together with broader and more diverse functional background which ensures broaderdiverse perspectives and competences will improve the Court's effectiveness in judgement and operation; whereas the failure to find an appropriate gender balance is unacceptable nowadays;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the Peer Review 2013 calls for shorter internal procedures in the Court, clarification of the role and mandate towards external stakeholders and underlines that the auditees influence the Court's findings and audit opinions too much;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)
Recital L b (new)
Lb. whereas Parliament focusses mainly on proposals that avoid the necessity of changes in the Treaty Changes;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L c (new)
Recital L c (new)
Lc. whereas the Council always respected the recommendation put forward by the Committee with the purpose to give an opinion on the suitability of candidates for the Advocate General European Court of Justice and the General Court, set up according to Article 255 TFEU, despite no clear obligation of the Treaty to do so;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)
Subheading 3 a (new)
Parliament's vision for the ECA: The future role of the Court
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. believes that the European Court of Auditors as an external auditor to the Union's institutions may provide the legislators not only with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions in a respective budgetary year, but also that the Court is in an eminent position to provide the legislator and the Budgetary Authority, especially Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee, with valuable opinions on results achieved by the Union's policies, in order to improve the performance and effectiveness of Union financed activities, identify economies of scale and scope as well as spill over effects among national policies of Member State and provide Parliament with external assessments to the Commission's evaluation of public finances in the Member States;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The traditional DAS (statement of assurance) model (new subheading)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that Parliament and its elected Members should be particularly rigorous when examining the implementation of the EU budget and that the Court should remain committed toIs of the opinion that independence, integrity, impartiality and professionalism of the Court are key for the credibility of the Court in assisting Parliament and the Council into overseeing and to contributinge to the improvement of EU financial management, and into protecting the financial interests of citizens from programming stages throughup to the closing of accounts;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RegretNotes that the Court of Auditors was – for the eighteenth time in a row – unable to grant a positive statement of assurance (DAS4) regarding the legality and regularity of payments; regrets, furthermore, in this context that after such an enormous and repetitive cycle and following the many efforts made, there has not been any change in this regard; highlights the fact that an error rate as such does not provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of Union policies; is bound by the Treaty (Article 287 I (2) (TFEU) ) to provide Parliament and the Council with a declaration of assurance (DAS4) regarding the legality and regularity of payments after having examined the regularity, legality and the results of the Union's Budget, moreover the ECA shall according to the Treaty provide Special Reports and Opinions; notes that a large part of the human resources of the Court are dedicated to the annual DAS exercise; __________________ 4 Abbreviation of the French term ‘Déclaration d'assurance’.
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that in addition to delivering an opinion onstead of delivering one statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, the Court of Auditors must deliver three opinions on the legality and regularity of underlying operations; takes the view that this excessive number of opinionsed in 2012 four opinions: one on the reliability of the accounts and three on the legality and regularity of underlying operations (one on the revenue, one on the commitments and one on payments); takes the view that this writing choice makes it more difficult for Members ofthe European Parliament to assess the Commission's implementation of the budget;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that the DAS is an annual indicator of a multiannual spending scheme, which makes it difficult to capture the cyclical nature and effect of multiannual arrangements, and therefore the retotal impact and effectiveness of the management and control systems can only be partially measured at the end of the spending period; considers, therefore, that the Court should be able to present to the discharge authority a summary reportmidterm review and a summary report in addition to the annual DAS on the final performance of a programming period;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. welcomes the fact that, since 2009, the Court has focused considerable efforts on developing its products and services as well as its annual report; believes, however, that greater effort should be made and more resources used to improve quality further, primarily with respect to the Court's performance audit work, which provides information on the EU budget results; considers that the Court should build upon the DAS model to determine whether results have been achieved and to explain how they have been achieved, so that lessons can be learned and applied in other contexts;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
The Court's new dimensions and challenges: from ex-post to ex-ante
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges the historic, constructive role of the DAS exercise to focuses on the concepts of legality and regularity as being useful indices of good financial practices on the part of the EUand management performance on all levels of Union spending; underlines, however, that at this point, and in the future, the Court should devote more resources to the examination of whether economy, effectiveness and efficiency have been achieved in the use of the public funds entrusted to the Commission;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls that the one of the best way to improve the control of the European Union accounts and to enhance both performance and effectiveness of EU spending is to have a discharge voted before the 31st of December of the year following the financial year controlled; underlines that that would force the Court to present its annual report the 30th of June;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that preparatory tripartite meetings betweenthe current form of meetings of the Court with Parliament, and the Council and the Court could form a basis upon which to establishprovide valuable advice to the drawing up of the Court's annual work programme; stresses that such structured preparatorythese dialogue coulds greatly assists in ensuring the effective and democratic accountability to citizens of the public funds put at stake to meet EU objectives; emphasizes that despite an increased advisory collaboration with Parliament and the Council, the Court should, independent of political or national influence, decide on its annual work program;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that issues of major interests to external stakeholders, such as the European Parliament, and subsequent audit requests are neither collected in a structured way nor fully treated as preferential; considers this as detrimental to the relevance and impact of the Court's audit results; notes, furthermore, that the added value of the Court is directly linked to the use made of its work by Parliament and other stakeholders in the accountability process; insistvites, therefore, that the Court'e Court to take into consideration in its annual work programme be aligned with the political priorities of the legislators and presented, in this connection, to Parliament's speciaissues of major interest to the EU citizens communicated by the Parliament's Budgetary Control cCommittee as a channel of the EU citizens' concerns;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Cooperation with national Supreme Audit Institutions (New subheading)
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Expects that closer cooperation between the ECA and Member State's SAI is established with concrete results concerning the share of the annual work of the ECA; expects furthermore concrete methodological steps and agreements on audit calendars; expects the Commission, on the basis of a legal study, to make proposals to integrate Member States SAI's audit work in the Court's audits on shared management in their respective Member State;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. proposes examination of the possibility of national audit bodies, in their capacity as independent external auditors, and with due regard for international audit standards, issuing national audit certificates for the management of Union funds, which would be submitted to Member State governments with a view to being produced during the discharge process in accordance with an appropriate interinstitutional procedure to be introduced;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Notes that the regulations covering the main areas of expenditure for the period 2014-2020 have substantially changed the financial and legal frameworks governing the implementation of the EU budget; points out that these reforms imply significant changes that will alter the landscape of financial management risk by simplifying funding rules, increasing conditionality and leveraging the EU budget; insists, therefore, that the Court increase its focus on results providing adequate reporting on risks and performance of such new instrumentsSuggests to the Court to synchronize its multiannual work programme with the MFF and include a midterm review as well as a comprehensive review of the Commission's closure of accounts to the respective MFF;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. notes that Performance Audits often lack a clear analysis of causes of audit findings; furthermore, notes that there is no system in place to ensure that the auditors assigned to performing a specific audit possess the technical knowledge and methodological skills needed to conduct the audit without having to work from scratch on any audit matter; considers that these circumstances increase ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the Court's findings in Performance Audits;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. expects from the Court full transparency about the Court's time needs for its products and calls on the Court to publish within each respective Performance Audit the time schedule and the different phases the respective product underwent in its development, i.e. the time that was needed to go through each of the different phases in place, currently these phases are: - Preliminary Study - Issue Analysis - Audit Planning Memorandum - Statement(s) of Preliminary Findings - Drawing Conclusions - Draft Report - Contradictory Procedure;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. notes that Performance Audits including a preliminary study of the Court take two years which made in several cases the audit findings outdated and prevent the implementation of adequate measures; expects the Court to streamline the drawing up of its Performance Audits and cut down on redundant procedural steps ,
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. expresses its wish that the Court should in the future not only publish the Commission's comments on its findings, conclusions and recommendations, but shall clearly express a final counter reply where appropriate;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)
Paragraph 23 c (new)
23c. is of the opinion that the Court should regularly communicate statistics on the presence of Members in its seat in Luxembourg to Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee; expects full transparency of the Court vis-à-vis Parliament in this regard; wishes to receive from the Commission an analysis on the feasibility of substituting a part of the remuneration of Court's Members with a Daily Allowance;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)
Paragraph 23 c (new)
23c. emphasis that despite the need to be fair and to refer to arguments of the auditee in the respective report, it is not necessary to reach consensus with the auditee;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 d (new)
Paragraph 23 d (new)
23d. notes that in some cases parliamentary deliberations about issues addressed by special reports were already concluded, therefore, it was not possible to put the results of the Court's audit to effective use; notes furthermore, that in some cases key recommendations of the Court had already been implemented by the Commission once a Court's report was presented; expects from the Court to bear all external time constraints and developments in mind when conducting its audits;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 e (new)
Paragraph 23 e (new)
23e. expects that the Court clearly communicate in its reports weaknesses and best practices of Member States authorities by consistently disclosing them;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 f (new)
Paragraph 23 f (new)
23f. is convinced that economies of scale and scope could be achieved by a thorough analysis of the resource needs of Court's Members; expects the Court to deplore such economies inter alia with respect to a common driver service for Members as well as shared cabinets and staff;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. RegretNotes that even if the Court is to bnominate a permanent Member of the ESM audit board, the annual audit report of the board will be made available neither to Parliament nor to the general public; believes that broad reflec; calls on the Court to provide Parliament regularly with the annual audit report of the board and all other necessary information onf the EU's public accountability and the audit structure of the Union as a whole, which includes the instruments for financial assistance, is unavoidable; believes that the Court should play a central role in such discussionCourt's activities in that regard so that Parliament can scrutinize the work of the Court of Auditors during the discharge procedure;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Reshaping the Court's governance structure
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Deplores the fact that some appointments have given rise to differences of opinion procedures have resulted in a conflict between Parliament and the Council; stresses that the Council's decision to appoint Members of the Court of Auditors despite Parliament having previously given an unfavourable opinion on candidates, despite the fact that the Treaty does not foresee such a conflict; underlines that it is, as stipulated in the Treaty, Parliament's duty to check the nominees; is of the opinion that Council should in the spirit of good cooperation among the European Institutions respect decisions taken by the Parliament subsequent to its unacceptablehearing;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Welcomes, in this respect, the fact that the Court adopted new rules of procedure in 2010 which enabled the Court to streamline its decision-making process so that audit reports and opinions are now adopted by Chambers of 5- 6 members rather than the full college of 28 members, this falling under the current legal framework;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Takes the view that the present geographic representation rule relating to high-level management, according to which there may be one member per Member State, has by far outlived its initial usefulness and credibility and that it could be replaced by a light management structure tailored to a broader accountability mandate, with proper provisions to guarantee independence in all of the Court's activities, and complemented by a governing board which could be based on Member State representation;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – introductory part
Paragraph 32 – introductory part
32. Proposes, therefore, that the Court should be composed of the following bodies:have the same number of members as the Commission; members should have at least professional experience in auditing as well as in management; members of the Court should be especially qualified for their function and their independence must be assured beyond doubt;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Proposes to review the method of remuneration of the Court members and the resources directly and personally affected to each member to both conform it with national and international practices for similar functions and allowing the Court members to fulfil their responsibilities independently;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 1
Paragraph 32 – point 1
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 2
Paragraph 32 – point 2
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 3
Paragraph 32 – point 3
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 – point c
Paragraph 33 – point c
(c) in the Committee on Budgetary Control, hearings will be public and the discussions will be relayed via video. At public hearings, discussion will be kept to a minimum, so as to prevent candidates from being subjected to to personal criticism in public;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point a
Paragraph 34 – point a
(a) high-level professional experience acquired in public finance or in management or, auditing and in management auditing, as well as proper knowledge of the governance of the European institutions;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point b
Paragraph 34 – point b
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point c
Paragraph 34 – point c
(c) an impeccable management record, in the case of those who have performed management duties in the public or private sectors good auditing record and evidence of very good knowledge of at least one of the working language of the European Union;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 34 – point c a (new)
(ca) where necessary, proof of prior discharge of applicants from management duties previously carried out;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point d a (new)
Paragraph 34 – point d a (new)
(da) recognised high standards of integrity and morality of the candidate;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point e
Paragraph 34 – point e
(e) in view of the nature of the work to be done, the age of candidates will also be taken into account, with it being deemed reasonable, for example, to stipulate that Members should not be over 65 years of age at the endtime of their first term of office or over 70 years of age at the end of their secondappointment;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point f
Paragraph 34 – point f
(f) it would be desirable for members shall not to serve for more than two terms of office;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 – point g
Paragraph 34 – point g
(g) finally, further to its assessment of individual merit and good character, Parliament will ensure that a balance is maintained in the composition of the Court as a whole in tParliament will take the issue of gender balance among the Court's Memberms of gender representation among its Membervery serious;