25 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2011/2233(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Grants the Executive Director of the European GNSS Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Approves the closure of the accounts of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F – indent 2
Recital F – indent 2
– urged the Agency to remedy the deficiencies in staff selection procedures which infringe the principle of equal treatment in the application of the eligibility criteria in recruitment procedures open to both internal and external candidates; notes that in 2011 the Agency took the steps required to guarantee transparency, equal treatment, and effectiveness in staff selection procedures,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F – indent 3
Recital F – indent 3
– called on the Agency to remedy the exclusion criteria for the Seventh Research Framework Programme which were not published and checked; notes, however, that the Agency had already provided information sufficient to demonstrate at any time that it has complied with the rules of the Financial Regulation and the Seventh Research Framework Programme and published the above- mentioned exclusion criteria in due form on CORDIS,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F – indent 4
Recital F – indent 4
– noted that the discharge authority did not systematically prove that small and medium enterprises (SME) criteria, for the potential beneficiaries in one of the topics which were not met, had been verified: notes, however, that the Agency has at all times systematically observed the SME criteria, given that it must, of necessity, apply the benchmarks established by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research when selecting beneficiaries,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that during 2010 the Agency purchased tangible fixed asse, in keeping with the accounting practice of the Galileo programme, components in the amount of EUR 4 400 000 on, namely Satellite magnetotorquers, satellite propulsion thrusters, satellite fuel tanks (In Orbit Validation) and ground rubidium atomic clocks (Full Operational Capability), were recorded by the Agency in 2010 as research expenditure;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concernedNotes that these assets have been recorded as research expenditure instead of being classified as assets held for transfer by the Agency to the Commission; is worriedpoints out that theis accounts of the Agency for 2010 are consequently not correct and there is an understatement of assets toing practice is in line with the EU requirements for the amccount of EUR 4 400 000 and an understing treatement of the economic out-turn account by the same amountGalileo components;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. UrgNotes the Agency,at, in the refpore, to take immediate action in this respect and inform the discharge authority on the measures taken to redress this error by March 2012 in order to take them into account before the European Parliament’s vote in plenaryt sent on 28 February 2012, the Agency already informed Parliament why these components have been treated in its accounts as described above;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
– the objective of the IOV/FOC phase is to assess the technical feasibility of the system, which was not validated in 2010, given that the Commission, which administers, and is in charge of, the Galileo programme, does not intend to carry out the validation until later;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – indent 2
Paragraph 4 – indent 2
– according to the Matimop Arrangement the equipment was never intended to be acquired by the Agency and was never and shall never be under the Agency’s controlits control; this is one of the main conditions for recognition of an asset according to EU accounting standards;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges in addition the Court of Auditors’ observations that, following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, most of the activities and assets related to the EGNOS and Galileo programmes were transferred to the Commission in December 2009 but at 31 December 2010, the status of EUR 2 000 000 held by the Agency in respect of technical support from the European Space Agency had still to be determined; urges the Agency, therefore, to inform the discharge authority on the action taken in this respect as the Agency replied that the transfer was to be finalised in September 2011; notes that the Agency transferred the above-mentioned funds to the Commission on 3 October 2011, as is duly recorded in the information which the Agency supplied to Parliament on 28 February 2012;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
urges the Agency and the Commission to inform the discharge authority of the actual contribution made by the Union to the Agency for 2010 and to explain the difference in the available data; notes that the Agency has informed Parliament of the contribution received in 2010 and that the contributions in question have been duly published in the Official Journal of the European Union;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2
Is concerned that under Title III the Agency’s execution rate in terms of payments was only of 60% compared to 97% in 2009; calls onwelcomes the fact that the Agency to implemhas takent the appropriate measures to ensure a better execution rate in terms of payments; measures necessary to remedy this situation, which have in fact translated into a high out-turn of payments in 2011 (90% in the case of Title III and 94% for the budget as a whole);
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Agency to rectifyNotes the deficiencies identified by the Court of Auditors in the evaluation process as regards the Seventh Research Framework Programme/Galileo/Second Call grant procedures which has a budget of EUR 26 000 000; acknowledges in particular the Court of Auditors’ observations that the criteria for assessingwelcomes the fact that the Agency has already rectified these deficiencies and theat applicants’ financial capacity were not defined and although the status of the applicant determined the maximum reimbursement rate, such status was not verified by the Agencyis now invariably assessed by the Commission;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. UrgNotes the Agency, in addition, to remedy the weaknesses found bycomments of the Court of Auditors on two grant agreements within the Sixth Research Framework Programme (FP6)/Third Call; notes in particular that the cost claims submitted by the beneficiaries were based on standard rates, instead of actual costs; reminds the Agency that this is not in compliance with the non-profit principle for Union financial contributions and that the Agency should promptly redress the situat allowed by the Galileo Joint Undertaking (the Agency’s legal predecessor); stresses that this system of rates used to be published in the invitations to tender posted on CORDIS and that the Agency, therefore, has no option at present but to continue with the existing contractual provisions;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Acknowledges, in addition, the Court of Auditors’ observations that five audited grants, related mainly to the Sixth Research Framework Programme, showed delays of between one and three years forin their implementation and successive increases in the initial value of the contracts were noted; notes that the Agency justified these delays by stating that the technological leading-edge nature of the activities is subject to constant change and therefore the Agency decided onthat these amendments and extensions were necessary and useful for the entire Galileo programme; notes that, in any case, the Agency states that it never exceeded the limit laid down in the budget for contracts as a whole;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the Agency’s Annual Activity Report (AAR) does not necessarily mirror its Annual Work Programme (AWP); establishes, in addition, that the objectives of its AWP are rather vague and therefore is quite difficult to assess and check whether they have been fulfilled; urges the Agency, therefore, to improve its AWP in order to allow the discharge authority to better evaluate the efficiency of this Agency; points out that the Agency has taken note of the Court of Auditors’ recommendations, and welcomes the fact that, as a result, the format of the next AWPs will conform to the requirements;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Urges the Agency to improve the selection procedures in order not to jeopardise the transparency of recruitment; acknowledges the Court of Auditors’ observations that in the staff selection procedures audited, threshold scores were not determined for admission to written tests and interviews or for inclusion in the list of suitable candidates; before the pre- selection tests; notes that the Agency has improved its selection procedures, observing EU personnel selection standards: it publishes vacancies in EPSO and on the Agency web page; as a matter of course, it provides all necessary information regarding the job description, the selection procedure, and eligibility requirements; and it lays down and carries out a series of checks over the course of the selection procedure, applying objective criteria at every stage;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – introductory part
Paragraph 20 – introductory part
20. Notes in addition the Agency’s observations in its AAR that at the end of 2010, there were no critical recommendations open by the Internal Audit Service, but 5 open recommendations related to:Welcomes the fact that the Agency’s five open recommendations in 2010, as referred to in its AAR, have now been implemented, as Parliament was informed in the Agency’s annual implementation review of recommendations in December 2011;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 1
Paragraph 20 – indent 1
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 2
Paragraph 20 – indent 2
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 3
Paragraph 20 – indent 3
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 4
Paragraph 20 – indent 4
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 5
Paragraph 20 – indent 5
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Draws attention to itsWelcomes the fact that, in its activities, the Agency has taken into account all the recommendations from previous Parliament discharge reports, as set outis described in the Annex to this resolution and also shown in the report that the Agency sent to Parliament on 28 February 2012;