Activities of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2011/2206(DEC)
Reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee PDF (139 KB) DOC (66 KB)
Amendments (6)
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GrantsIn keeping with its power to make use of the two deadlines in the discharge timetable, in order, in this case, to obtain essential information about the proceedings of OLAF, the European Ombudsman, and the Court of Justice, which in some cases will shortly be brought to a conclusion, postpones its decision on granting the Secretary- General of the European Economic and Social Committee/Postpones discharge in respect of the implementation of the Economic and Social Committee budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Warns, however, that more clarity will be needed on the conditions for issuingelcomes the fact that the changes made at the EESC Bureau meeting of 21 February 2012 as regards confirmations of attendance, the rationale behind the allowance provided for in Article 12 and the reasons for reimbursement for taking part in and reimbursement for taking part in video conferences were along the lines suggested by Parliament (a more solidly based rationale behind the Article 12 allowance and deletion of the point relating to video conferencesing); keenly awaits the results of the negotiations between the EESC and the Council on a definitive and satisfactory solution to all these issues, for which the decision depends on the Council;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reconfirms its position that, in the interests of transparency, declarations of financial interests of members of all institutions should be accessible on the Internet; in that context, notes with satisfaction the decision by the EESC Bureau providing for publication of the declarations of financial interests of its members; welcomes the fact that the system has been fully operative since the beginning of 2012;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores, with regard to the alleged irregularities uncovered in the 2009 discharge procedure, the fact that the EESC Secretary-General did not provide sufficient explanation in response to questions highlighting not only instances of bad administrative practice and the pressing need for internal procedures to be improved, but also, which is more serious, the recurring suspicespecially in view of the staff conflicts that had not been satisfactorily resolved, harming those who drew attentions that interest in sound economic management of the institution and of the EU budget is being abandoned, in particular through the failure to resolve staff conflicts; notes that all these questions have led, inter alia, to allegations being submitted to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Ombudsman and the Court of Justice, not only by officials but also by members of the EESCo irregularities, refused to be party to them, and reported them to the appropriate ‘whistle-blowers’ and, conversely, benefiting those who aided and abetted an internal administrative and personnel policy aimed at covering up and playing down irregularities and errors which ultimately affect the EU budget; notes that all these questions have led, inter alia, to allegations being submitted to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Ombudsman and the Court of Justice, not only by officials but also by members of the EESC; notes that some of the appointments made by the Secretary-General in the above cases involve a manifest conflict of interest; therefore considers that a change of attitude is needed urgently in internal administrative and personnel policy management in order to avert regrettable situations such as have been seen in the past;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 – indent 6
Paragraph 17 – indent 6
– violation of whistle-blowers’ rights due to infringement of Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, which provides that officials shall not suffer any prejudicial effects from the institution as a result of having communicated information on irregularities, provided that they acted reasonably and honestly;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates its request for the Court of Auditors to identify evidence of irregularities in the 2009 and 2010 audits as well as the deficiencies in the promotion system of the EESC which led the EESC to undertake the thorough reform which is ongoinggrets that the Court of Auditors did not thoroughly examine the evidence of irregularities and maladministration in the most recent audits, in spite of Parliament’s warnings in its resolution on discharge to the EESC for the financial year 2009, and likewise failed to identify the deficiencies in the promotion system of the EESC which led the EESC to undertake the thorough reform which is ongoing; accordingly considers it imperative to improve the transparency and effectiveness of the present system of decision-taking and delegation of decision-taking power, which in some cases is unclear (President, Bureau, Secretary-General, etc.);