Activities of Monica MACOVEI related to 2011/2232(DEC)
Reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agencies for the financial year 2010: performance, financial management and control of European Union Agencies PDF (259 KB) DOC (205 KB)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Union contributions tobudget of the decentralised Agencies increased substantially between 2007 and 2010 from EUR 1 055 000 000 (for 21 Agencies) to EUR 1 658 000 000 (for 24 Agencies),
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Union contributions to the decentralised Agencies for the financial year 2010 amounted to EUR 1 658over EUR 620 000 000,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Court of Auditors planned to analyse the Agencies’ performance and issue a Special Report by 2011 on cost benchmarking of the European Union Agencies, but regretfully failed to issue this report before the end of 2011 and whereas on 15 February 2012 the President of the European Court of Auditors sent to the President of the European Parliament a document on the Agencies’ governance costs, financial management and operational efficiency stating in the cover letter that this was not the Special Report, that it has a non-public nature and could be used for the 2011 discharge although it covered comparative data from 2008 to 2010,
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Acknowledges, however, that due to their financial set-ups, some Agencies, such as EMA, generally end up with a high level of carryovers at the end of each financial year; calls on these Agencies to establish a genuine mechanism enabling them to establish, in due time, their estimated level of carryovers; is of the opinion that such a mechanism is essential to evaluate whether the level of carryovers at year end is justified and the Agencies’ ability to manage their budget properly;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on all relevant budgetary actors to respect their duties, within the budgetary procedure, to provide adequate justification for their requests concerning the Agencies’ budgets (i.e. initial budget request, increases, decreases); is of the opinion that the Agencies’ budgets should be based on their actual real needs and be therefore established on a zero basis instead of the basis determined by needs established years ago;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Repeats its call on the Court of Auditors to make a comprehensive analysis of the Agencies’ policies, approach and concrete practice for the management of the situations of the conflicts of interest, in order to stop the existing conflicts and prevent future ones taking into account the OECD definition of conflict of interest and its related rules;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. Urges the Court of Auditors, therefore, to seriously and impartialo thoroughly exercise its controlling and auditing functions on the Agencies and reflect all its findings and recommendations through its public annual or special reports to enable Parliament to fulfil its discharging function fully and for the public to know how the Agencies are managed and which the wrongs were identified;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21
Subheading 21
Reports on the Annual Account by the Court of Auditors: failures and shortcomings
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Is seriously concerned that despite Parliament’s requests, the Court of Auditors’ reports on the annual accounts for 2010 include only half of the information provided in previous years (in 2010: 38 comments for 24 Agencies, in 2009: 69 comments for 22 Agencies and in 2008: 69 comments for 23 Agencies) and that most of the Court of Auditors’ comments on the 2010’s reports include only general statements and not precise information and findings; is concerned that the Court of Auditors did not act as an external independent controlling authority and acted against the interests of the Union andto also satisfy the European citizens’ right to know how their money is spent and how the Agencies are managed; recalls, in this context, that the Agencies serve the public interest and should be accountable to the citizens whose interest claim tomust serve;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Recalls moreover that the Court of Auditors failed adid not reporting the level of appropriations carried over from 2009 to 2010 and those cancelled, for at least ECHA, EEA, EMSA and CEPOL in its reports on the Agencies for the financial year 2010; finds that this failure is unacceptabletakes note of the Court of Auditors’ statement that the carryover situation for the aforementioned Agencies was not found to be significant or unjustified but recalls that the discharge authority is the European Parliament;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Is seriously concerned that, despite the Court of Auditors’ information provided in its 2011 Annual Work Programme and the persistent requests from Parliament, which is, after all, one of the European stakeholders, the two Special Reports related to Agencies dealing with: a) cost benchmarking of Union Agencies and b) conflicts of interest with the management at the Agencies, are still not ready or made available; notes that the Special Report on cost benchmarking of the Agencies was initially planned by the Court of Auditors for October 2011 but has still not been issued, and that the Court of Auditors’ representative stat on cost benchmarking of Union Agencies has not been delivered; is surprised that on 15 February 2012 the President of the European Court of Auditors sent a letter with an annex to the President of the European Parliament stating basically that the annex (i) is not the Special Report on cost benchmarking of the Agencies, (ii) is of a non-public nature and (iii) that it could be used for the 2011 discharge, thus implying that it should not be used forally in Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control that it is still working on the 17th draft, but failed so far to send the final report or a draft to Parliament despite repeated requests; is concerned tha the 2010 discharge although the data in the annex cover 2008-2010; considers this as unacceptable and continues to call on the European Court of Auditors to issue the Special Report ion these circumstances the ‘conflict of interest management’ report will not be issued on time by the Court of Auditors and/or it will not reflect the real situationost benchmarking of the Agencies which has been planed for 2011 in its Work Programme;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. UrgesNotes that the Court of Auditors, once more, to provide the discharge authority with the report on cost benchmarking of Union Agencies in its current state in good time to allow the Parliament to consider it for the 2010 discharge and to issue within the deadline a serious and comprehensive report on the conflicts of interest management in the Union Agencies will publish a Special Report on conflicts of interest management in the Union Agencies by the end of June 2012; being concerned that several Agencies are repeatedly challenged over cases involving conflicts of interest; welcomes this decision and expects the Court of Auditors to issue this Special Report within the planed timeframe;