13 Amendments of Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY related to 2012/2064(INI)
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges the historic, constructive role of the DAS exercise focuses on the concepts of legality and regularity as being useful indices of good financial practices on the part of the EU; underlines, however, that at this point, and in the future, the Court should devote more resources to the examination of whether economy, effectiveness and efficiency have been achieved in the use of the public funds entrusted to the Commission as many Special Reports of the Court showed that results and added value of programs could not be proven. These findings have unfortunately not led to fundamental adjustments in EU programs;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends, moreover, that the Court intervene in all legislative proposals put forward by the Commission, providing advice during the conception period as to the financial and other risks involved, and also assisting the Commission to develop a new culture of performance, defining in their legislative proposals and in their management procedures a number of targets and key performance indicators which meet the requirements of the Court of Auditors in terms of relevance, comparability and reliability. Requests to include a clear assessment of the results achieved through the budget in the annual report of the Commission on the evaluation of the EU's finances;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Proposes that the European Parliament devotes a special section in its annual discharge report to the follow-up of the recommendations made by the Court in its various performance audits, in order to pressure the Commission and member states to implement these recommendations. Parliament should also indicate to which major follow-up actions the Court can pay special attention in its annual report.
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises that the Court should be at the forefront in defining a model reform whereby national SAIs and the Court coordinate their resources to evaluate the expenditure and performance of the EU budget, avoiding duplication of control work and sharing control information, which results in greater effectiveness at each control level; notes that the sharing of audit and control data between the Court and the SAIs is key to improving the targeting of audit and control efforts; notes that too many layers of control exist and that these duplications should be avoided in order to decrease the burden on managing authorities and beneficiaries;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Deplores the fact that intergovernmental action outside of the EU Treaty framework, like that used for the establishment of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) also creates serious challenges for public accountability and auditing while weakening the Court's primordial role;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. RDeplores the fact that for the EFSF so far no arrangements whatsoever have been made for independent public external control, and regrets that even if the Court is to be a permanent Member of the ESM audit board, the annual audit report of the board will be made available neither to Parliament nor to the general public; believes that broad reflection on the EU's public accountability and the audit structure of the Union as a whole, which includes the instruments for financial assistance, is unavoidable; believes that the Court should play a central role in such discussion;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Takes the view that the present geographic representation rule relating to high-level management, according to which there may be one member per Member State, has by far outlived its initial usefulness and credibility and that it could be replaced by a light management structure tailored to a broader accountability mandate, with proper provisions to guarantee independence in all of the Court's activities, and complemented by a governing board which could be based on Member State representation;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – introductory part
Paragraph 32 – introductory part
32. Proposes, therefore, that the Court should be composed of the following bodiesis smaller college should:
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 1
Paragraph 32 – point 1
· a governing board consisting of the 28 heads of the national SAIs, which would meet three times per year to define the Court's annual and multiannual work programme, the possible improvement in the Court's functions and methodology, and the follow-up required on activities; the board should be chaired by the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 2
Paragraph 32 – point 2
· a management board, of not more than nine members, composed of a representative sample of large and small Member States, with an appropriate gender balance, which would decide on how the mandate should be aligned with the Commission's term of office; the management board should be headed by the president of the Court and eight vice- presidentsdecide on how the mandate should be aligned with the Commission's term of office;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 3
Paragraph 32 – point 3
· the management boardcollege should be diverse and broad in its composition, and boardgender balanced, and Court members should have professional experience in management or auditing, in academic life or experience in political bodies; members of the Court should be especially qualified for their function and their independence must be assured beyond doubt;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 – point c
Paragraph 33 – point c
(c) in the Committee on Budgetary Control, hearings will be public and the discussions will be relayed via video. At public hearings, discussion will be kept to a minimum, so as to prevent candidates from being subjected to to personal criticism in public;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 – point b – point iii – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 36 – point b – point iii – indent 2 a (new)
- a short motivation for its opinion