BETA

Activities of Jean-Pierre AUDY related to 2010/2079(INI)

Plenary speeches (1)

Implementation of the Research Framework Programmes (short presentation)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2079(INI)

Amendments (17)

Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas, despite improvements in respect of the extreme complexity of FP6, the current management of FP7 is still characterised by excessive bureaucracy, low risk tolerance, poor efficiency and undue delays that act as a clear disincentive to the participation of the research community, academia, businesses and industry (especially SMEs),
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas result-based fundingfunding based on results alone might limit the scope of the research projects to less risky projects and research orientated towards the market, something that would hamper the EU in pursuing excellence and frontier research,
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the design and implementation of the current FP7 and future Framework Programmes must be based on the principles of simplicity, stability, transparency, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust,
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the numerous controls of research bodies in Europe being carried out by the Commission in accordance with the current non-simplified rules must be rapidly concluded in order to retain the trust of the bodies concerned,
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that any simplification process should be carefully deployed within the current FP7 to maintain stability, consistency and legal certainty for the participants and that the Commission should take account of the extreme complexity of previous framework programmes, in particular FP6, in ruling on the findings of ex post audits undertaken by it;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that EU monitoring and financial control should be primarily aimed at safeguarding public funds and combating fraud, whilst distinguishing clearly between fraud and errors; asks the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refrain from initiating criminal proceedings until fraud has been detected, while respecting the presumption of innocence;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Proposes, for example, a tacit approval procedure in order to facilitate modification of the grant award agreement, particularly in order to take account of changes in the composition of consortia or their administrative and financial configuration;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Requests further clarification on the definition of eligible costs (such as taxes and charges in personnel costs, in particular sick leave and maternity leave), as well as on the question whether VAT can be covered under eligible costs; requests further clarification on procedures related to exchange rates for partners using different currencies;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Asks the Commission to present more precise, consistent and transparent rules of procedure for audits, including rules and principles ensuring that the rights of the audited body are respected and that all parties are heard, and to report on the cost/benefit ratio of the audits;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to provide legal certainty by refraining from applying any rules for participation retroactively and by refraining from recalculating financial statements already approved, hence reducing the need for ex-post audits and retroactive corrections; asks the Commission rapidly to resolve prior situations arising from inspections in progress, acting with discernment and respect for the principles of sound financial management; recommends that disputes regarding such prior situations be resolved by agreement between all parties, based for example on an independent re-audit and/or with the intervention of an ad hoc independent mediator;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to provide legal certainty by refraining from applying any rules for participation retroactively and by refraining from asking recipients to recalculatinge financial statements already approved, hence reducing the need for ex- post audits and retroactive corrections;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Proposes the introduction of a response procedure under which, in the absence within a deadline to be established of any reaction from the Commission to information received, the latter shall be considered as validated by the Commission;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Asks that information of a general nature and that relating to the organisation and accounting procedures of recipients may be required once only, however many audits are carried out;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Proposes the use of electronic signatures for the preparation of files;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21c. Asks that the status and legal nature of documentation and requirements formulated by the Commission and its services in its relations with project organisers and recipients (mails, e-mails, unsigned communications, guidelines ...) be established with great precision;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Regards as inadequate, save in exceptional and duly justified circumstances, the general use of lump sums such as negotiated project- specific lump sums or pre-defined lump sums per project; favours instead the ‘high- trust’ approach tailor-made for frontier research; recommends launching pilot tests of the ‘result-based funding’ with project- specific lump sums paid against agreed output/results for research and demonstration projects in specifically challenging areas;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Favours instead a ‘science-based’ funding system, with emphasis on scientific/technical criteria and peer review based on excellence, relevance and impact, with simplified and efficient financial control, respecting the right of all sides to be heard; believes that this science-based approach will entail a major shift from the financial to the scientific/technical side with regard to control mechanisms; considers that this approach allows stakeholders to focus their efforts on their core competences, on scientific matters and on the construction of the ERA;
2010/07/16
Committee: ITRE