6 Amendments of Andrea ČEŠKOVÁ related to 2010/2142(DEC)
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that in the present understanding of ‘shared management’ most of the management functions are carried out by national bodies not directly accountable at Union level and over which the Commission has no authority; insists that this does not absolve the Commission of its responsibility for the implementation of the budget but, on the contrary, requires it to take a hard line with any Member States not fulfilling their responsibilities under shared management;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls its repeated invitations to the Commission to present a proposal for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations (NMDs) issued and signed at ministerial level and duly audited by an independent auditor so as far as such declarations are a necessary and indispensable first step to improve the efficiency of national systems and to enhance national accountability for the use of Union money; reiterates1 that for Member States with federal systems or substantial decentralisation such national declarations could take the form, in whole or in part, of a collation of regional declarations , provided that each component declaration has been audited and signed by an elected political office- holder; __________________ 1 For example paragraphs 23 and 24 of the European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section III – Commission (OJ L 187, 15.7.2008, p. 23).
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. reiterates its call for the Court of Auditors to work with Member-State authorities to develop a matrix system of control in line with its resolution of 27 April 20061; suggests that the Court of Auditors conduct a number of 'matrix audits' annually on the same basis as the matrix scoreboard so that the control systems for a given policy area overall and of each Member State in respect of that policy area can be judged; further suggests that such 'matrix audits' be repeated periodically so progress can be clearly and authoritatively assessed; 1 Paragraph 24 of the European Parliament resolution with comments forming an integral part of the decision on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004, Section III – Commission.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Believes that control systems cannot aim at zero risk in all spending areas, not only because it would be extremely expensive, but also because it is unlikely that zero risk in all spending areas will ever be achieved; accepts that a certain risk of error will always exist when implementing Union spending programmes; emphasises that tolerating risk is not the same as tolerating error and reaffirms that the Commission must pursue a zero-tolerance approach to all cases of mismanagement and fraud;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 c (new)
Paragraph 45 c (new)
45c. Reiterates its belief that transparency is one of the main instruments in achieving 'legal and regular' expenditure; believes that the objective should be the creation of a single, comprehensive, multilingual online system which can be accessed easily by any individual and would therefore allow the public to have easy access to full and complete information about the expenditure of the Union by budget line and by beneficiary; calls therefore on the Commission to publish online details of all items of Union expenditure above a de minimis threshold and to pursue the establishment of a user-friendly online system recording all beneficiaries;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 g (new)
Paragraph 45 g (new)
45g. calls on the Commission to review its systems for evaluating the effectiveness of expenditure programmes to assess whether they are adding value, delivering value for money, and achieving the objectives for which they were established; insists that such evaluations should be both conducted and then assessed independently; calls therefore for independent evaluations to be submitted to Parliament and its relevant committees for scrutiny;