5 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2012/2168(DEC)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that scrutiny is necessary to ensure that Parliament's administration is held accountable and that only full and complete transparency offers citizens of the Ugiven the great interest among European citizens and public opinion ain insight intothe European Parliament'’s use of the resources put at its disposal; stresses however that the Parliament's discharge procedure involves non- negligible risks for the reputation of the Parliament as an institutiondischarge procedure, it is essential for Parliament to avoid any risk of opaque management and therefore to operate in a completely transparent manner to ensure that EU citizens are provided with a true and accurate view of the way that Parliament uses the resources placed at its disposal;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that even non-material shortcomings may result in considerable reputational damage overshadowing Parliament's policy achievements and resince the European Parliament is the authority responsible for issuing the final decision on discharge, it is of the utmost importance that the procedure be conducted in an exemplary manner in the case of Parliament, and that it is therefore necessary to prevent even the most minor shortcomindgs Parliawhich might tarnish the political achievement's Members and staff of their personal responsibility in Parliament's propof Europe’s democratic institution and its efforts to achieve increased transparency and sounder financial management;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls for staff training courses, and especially intensive language courses, to be tailored more effectively to the work schedule of the various types of staff working at Parliament, including accredited parliamentary assistants.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that 2011 was the second full year in which the new Statute for Members and the Statute for Assistants has been in force (both effective as of 14 July 2009); notes that the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Assistants have been amended four times in those two years for the application of Title VII of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and the Implementing Measures on the basis of proposals from the Temporary Evaluation Group and the Secretary-General; recalls that the implementation of Title VII of the CEOS created a single scheme governing the status of accredited parliamentary assistants (APAs) working in Parliament's three working places, which replaced twenty-seven different national systems of contractual relationships, taxation and social security and that currently there is no evidence that would suggest; points out, however, that there is now sufficient evidence that legal vacuums exist to suggest there is a need to adapt the rules applying to parliamentary assistants contained in Title VII of the CEOS;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Takes note, furthermore, that, under the Internal Rules for the employment of APAs, the latter are allowed to submit the medical certificate and other documents required for the conclusion of contracts within three months after the date on which the contract for their initial recruitment takes effect, butand that since this derogation conflicts withtradicts the provision laid downs set out in Articles 128 and 129 of the CEOS those articles should be brought into line with the rules applicable to accredited assistants; also notes that, as regards compliance with the requirement concerning the knowledge of languages, in none of the 10 cases audited were there documents on file proving that checks had been performed;