2010/2144(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1

1. Postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – introductory part

8. ~~Proposes, in compliance with the Council's role as budgetary authority, as well as i~~Notes with satisfaction the goodwill of the Hungarian Pres~~pect of its own role in the discharge procedure,~~idency and the progress achieved; a cco~~mpromise on the procedure~~rdingly, proposes the following interim solution to be agreed upon by the Parliament and the Council so as to avoid future tensions~~; suggests therefore that~~ in the negotiating process:

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – introductory part

8. ~~Proposes, in compliance with the Council's role as budgetary authority, as well as in respect of its own role in~~Asks the Council and the European Parliament to establish an annual procedure, in order to facilitate the ~~dis~~excharnge ~~procedure, a compromise on th~~of information in the discharge procedure, t~~o be agreed upon by the Parliament and the Council so as to avoid future tensions; suggests therefore that~~he fundamental elements of which should be:

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Invites the Council to consider, in the future, the possibility of reaching an interinstitutional agreement with the Parliament in order to regulate the discharge procedure on the basis of the resolutions on Council discharge adopted by the Parliament and as proposed by Parliament's competent committee;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 1

-– ~~there should be~~ a formal meeting to be held between representatives of the Council and Parliament's Committee responsible for the discharge procedure ~~(comprising~~, to be attended by the Secretary-General of the Council and the Presidency in office, the bureau of the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, the rapporteur and the Members representing political groups (coordinators)) and/or alternative rapporteurs) in order to provide all the necessary information on the implementation of the Council budget,

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 2

– that the Secretary-General of the Council should ~~comment on~~answer questions submitted by the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, to the Council,

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 2

– the Secretary-General of the Council should comment on questions submitted to the Council by the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, ~~to the Council,~~

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 3

– ~~a calendar shall be established so as~~the establishment of a calendar to streamline and stabilise the annual procedure;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 3

– a ~~calendar~~timetable shall be established so as to streamline and stabilise th~~e annual procedure~~is interim solution;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Indicates that the reasons for postponement are as follows: (a) the Council has not accepted any invitation to officially and formally meet Parliament's competent committee or its rapporteur to discuss matters concerning Council budget execution for 2009, (b) the Council refused to provide a written answer providing the Parliament with the information and documents requested from the Council in the annex to a letter of 14 December 2010 signed by the rapporteur, (c) the Parliament has not received fundamental documents from the Council, such as the annual activity report and the full list of budgetary transfers;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament's competent committee, by 15 June 2011 at the latest, with comprehensive written answers to the following questions: (a) With regard to the discharge procedure: does the Council agree to replace the informal practices of the so- called 'gentlemen's agreement' by formal and official bilateral meetings between the Council and Parliament's competent committee? (b) With regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament's competent committee, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly; however, it is considered of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members' questions referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates in Parliament's competent committee on the Council discharge? (c) What is the understanding of the Council of "sufficient degree of financial and administrative autonomy across the full spectrum of the budgetary cycle" in order to reach a possible future agreement with the Parliament? (d) What timetable does the Council envisage for considering the difficulties related to the deadlines of the discharge procedure? (e) Why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge onwards please present the internal audit in (an) other language(s) than French? (f) Has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament's competent committee see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to make one? (g) Until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council understanding of "respond to the appropriate enquiries"? (h) The Court of Auditors, in its Annual Report 2009 found that, in two out of six procurement procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar cases in the future? (i) Staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSR): Please indicate the staff (all staff, establishment plan and others) – number of posts, grade – for the EUSR in the Council for 2009. In which way and when will the EUSR-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the budget for travelling for each individual EUSR? How many EUSR staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will remain with the Council and why? (j) The Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in point 2.2 in the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278. Has the Council solved the problems concerning Mr. Solana's expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget? (k) What were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc envisaged by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP)? (l) The HR/VP came into office on 1 December, 2009. How was the cost distributed between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)?How did the Council prepare the budget for the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities? (m) How will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council's plans on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is the anticipated cost for removal? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) published? (n) What was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) tasks, which were at least part-financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of CFSP expenditure in 2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost in 2009? (o) What was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and elsewhere and where did these meetings take place? (p) What was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operation has been charged to the Union budget? (q) What was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the "ATHENAE" mechanism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report? (r) There is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council's establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on the functioning of the Council's General Secretariat (CGS)? Can CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons of the persistent discrepancy? (s) What is the total number of posts assigned to the task of 'policy coordination' and administrative support (as defined in the Commission's annual staff screening reports)? What is its percentage in relation to the overall number of posts? (t) To achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working procedures. With what measurements does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? (u) The Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the Irish language unit. How many staff are occupied by the other languages (staff per language)? Are there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the affirmative - how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)? (v) The Reflection Group was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? The Council earmarked EUR 1°060°000 for the “Reflection Group”. How many posts can be allocated to this group? (w) The expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic, (cf. Council note 15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many different budget lines? (x) Why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add “les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais d’interprétation” (delegates travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) after strong criticism in the last two resolutions from the Parliament on the Council discharge? (y) The Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations' travel expenses. As a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to considerably less than the initial budget, and less than a half of the amount available after the transfer (EUR 36.1 million initial and EUR 48 1 million available after transfer against EUR 22.7 million committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 million transfer (cf. the financial activity re-port – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.3.2-VI bullet)? Why is the transfer from interpretation to delegates travelling estimated at EUR 12 million by the Council at page 12 and at EUR 10°558°362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is EUR 17°798°362)? (z) In 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17.8 million in addition to EUR 15 million earmarked in Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can CGS provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this? What does the Residence Palace Building cost? Does the Council think the envisaged amount will be reached or could the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are envisaged to finance the building? (aa) Implementation of the Council budget - appropriations carried over: Could the Council present the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the year 2009 and therefore carried over? (bb) The carryover to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to EUR 31 8 million. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for this high carryover ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010? (cc) What does “technical provision of EUR 25 million for the launch of the European Council 2010” mean? (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.1, IV bullet) (dd) What is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines? (ee) Can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council's financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament's resolution1 of 25 November 2009 accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the financial year 2007?

Amendment 2 #

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1

1. Grants the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

110c. Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament's competent committee, by 15 June 2011 at the latest, with: (a) the full list of budgetary transfers concerning the 2009 budget of the Council, (b) its annual activity report for the year 2009, (c) a written statement on the Council's mission expenses as carried out by the European Union Special Representatives, (d) the Members States' declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.2.2, II bullet), (e) the report of the “Reflection Group” in order to understand why such a report costs EUR 1 060 000 (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 2.2). Or. en OJ L 19, 23.1.2010, p. 9.

Amendment 21 #

Søren Bo SØNDERGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – indent 2 a (new)

- The questions the Parliament wants written answers to are: 1. With regard to the discharge procedure: does the Council agree to replace the informal practices of the so- called 'gentlemen's agreement' by formal and official bilateral meetings between the Council and Parliament's competent committee? 2. With regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament's competent committee, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly; however, it is considered of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members' questions referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates in Parliament's competent committee on the Council discharge debates? 3 . What is the understanding of the Council of "sufficient degree of financial and administrative autonomy across the full spectrum of the budgetary cycle" in order to reach a possible future agreement with the Parliament? 4. What timetable does the Council envisage considering the difficulties related to the deadlines of the discharge procedure? 5. Why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge onwards please present the internal audit in (an) other language(s) than French? 6. Has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament's competent committee see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to make one? 7. Until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council understanding of "respond to the appropriate enquiries"? 8. The Court of Auditors in its Annual Report 2009 found that, in two out of six procurement procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar cases in the future? 9. Staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSR): Please indicate the staff (all staff, establishment plan and others) - number of posts, grade - for the EUSR in the Council for 2009. In which way and when will the EUSR-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the budget for travelling for each individual EUSR? How many EUSR staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will remain with the Council and why? 10. Invites the Council to provide a written statement on the Council's mission expenses as carried out by the special representatives. 11. The Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in point 2.2 in the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278. Has the Council solved the problems concerning Mr. Solana's expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget? 12. What were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc envisaged by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP)? 13. The HR/VP came into office on 1 December 2009. How was the cost distributed between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)?How did the Council prepare the budget for the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities? 14. How will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council's plans on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is the anticipated cost for removal? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) published? 15. What was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) tasks, which were at least part-financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) expenditure in 2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost 2009? 16. What was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and elsewhere and where did these meetings take place? 17. What was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operation has been charged to the Union budget? 18. What was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the "ATHENAE" mechanism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report? 19. There is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council's establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on the functioning of the Council's General Secretariat (CGS)? Can CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons of the persistent discrepancy? 20. What is the total number of posts assigned to the task of 'policy coordination' and administrative support (as defined in the Commission's annual staff screening reports)? What is its percentage in relation to the overall number of posts? 21. To achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working procedures. With what measurements does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? 22. The Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the Irish language unit. How many staff are occupied by the other languages (staff per language)? Are there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the affirmative - how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)? 23. The Reflection Group was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? 24. The Council earmarked EUR 1°060°000 for the “Reflection Group”. How many posts can be allocated to this group? May the Parliament receive the report of the “Reflection Group” in order to understand why such a report costs EUR 1° 060°000 (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 2.2)? 25. The expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic, (cf. Council note 15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many different budget lines? 26. Why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add “les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais d’interprétation” (delegates travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) - after strong criticism in the last two resolutions from the Parliament on the Council discharge? 27. The Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations' travel expenses. As a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to considerably less than the initial budget, and less than a half of the amount available after the transfer (EUR 36.1 million initial and EUR 48.1 million available after transfer against EUR 22.7 million committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 million transfer (cf. the financial activity re-port – 11327/10, FIN 278 -point 3.3.2-VI bullet)? Why is the transfer from interpretation to delegates travelling estimated at EUR 12 million by the Council at page 12 and at EUR 10°558°362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is EUR 17°798°362)? 28. In 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17.8 million in addition to EUR 15 million earmarked in Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can CGS provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this? What does the Residence Palace Building cost? Does the Council think the envisaged amount will be reached or could the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are foreseen to finance the building? 29. Implementation of the Council budget - appropriations carried over: Could the Council present the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the year 2009 and therefore carried over? 30. The carryover to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to EUR 31.8 million. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for this high carryover ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010? 31. What does “technical provision of EUR 25 million for the launch of the European Council 2010” mean? (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.1, IV bullet) 32. What is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines? 33. Will the Council give the Parliament the Members States' declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.2.2, II bullet)? 34. Can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council's financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament's resolution1 of 25 November 2009 accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the financial year 2007?

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

~~1 OJ L 19, 23.1.2010, p. 9.~~10a. Takes note of the Council's efforts to modernise its administration and the introduction of teleworking; asks the Council to report on further measures taken in this respect and in particular those to improve the quality of financial management as well as their impact; Or. en

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Requests the Council to provide information on the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc. projected by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice President of the Commission, and on the High Representative/Vice President cost distribution between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.), given that the High Representative/Vice President entered into office on 1 December 2009; asks how the Council prepared the budget for the High Representative/Vice President for 2010, and which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities;deleted

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that the Council did not indicate the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/CSDP) tasks, which were at least part-financed from the Union's budget in 2009, and calls on the Council to state the total amount of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) expenditure in 2009, as well as to identify, as a minimum, the main missions and their cost in 2009;deleted

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Asks the Council to indicate the administrative expenditure connected to the implementation of CFSP/CSDP military operations, and the share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operations that has been charged to the Union budget, as well as the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the ATHENA mechanism, and the number of posts needed for this mechanism, as well as whether any posts so concerned are to be transferred to the EEAS;deleted

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Notes the low occupation rate of posts set out in the Council's establishment plan (91% in 2009, 90% in 2008), and requests the Council's comments whether this consistently low rate has any repercussions on the functioning of the General Secretariat of the Council, whether lower occupation rates are specific to any particular services, and whether the General Secretariat of the Council is able to perform all its functions with the current occupation rate; invites the Council to provide information on the absolute number of posts assigned to the task of ‘policy coordination’ and administrative support (as defined in the Commission's annual staff screening reports) and their percentage in relation to the overall number of posts;deleted

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes that the Reflection Group was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008; however, also notes that the necessary financing was not foreseen and included in Budget 2009, as a result, the contingency reserve was used to finance a structure conceived in 2007; asks how many posts can be allocated to the Reflection Group, and whether the Parliament may receive the report of the Reflection Group;deleted

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes that the Reflection Group was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008; however, also notes that the necessary financing was not foreseen and included in Budget 2009, as a result, the amount of EUR 1°060°000 from the contingency reserve was used to finance a structure conceived in 2007; asks how many posts can be allocated to the Reflection Group, and whether the Parliament may receive the report of the Reflection Group;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that the Council has again used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations‘ travel expenses, while 2009 commitments for travel expenses already amounted to considerably less than the initial budget (EUR 36,1 million initial and EUR 48,1 million available after transfer vs. 22,7 million committed); invites the Council to explain the reasons for this EUR 12°000°000 transfer, as well as the use of the remaining amount transferred from interpretation (total amount transferred was EUR 17°798°362);deleted

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

the 2007 and 2008 discharge procedures, and reaffirms its position expressed in its resolution of 16 June 201020 on Council discharge in respect of the financial year 2008, in particular, its call on the Council to establish together with the Parliament an annual procedure within the discharge procedure with a view to providing all the information needed as regards the execution of the Council's budget;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that the Council has again used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations‘' travel expenses, while 2009 commitments for travel expenses already amounted to considerably less than the initial budget (EUR 36,1 million initial and EUR 48,1 million available after transfer vs. 22,7 million committed); invites the Council to explain the reasons for this EUR 12°000°000 transfer, as well as the use of the remaining amount transferred from interpretation (total amount transferred was EUR 17°798°362); in addition, asks the Council to explain the large amount of recovery orders made before 2009 and carried over to 2009 (EUR 12°300°000 ) as well as recoveries made from declarations relating to 2007 (EUR 6°300°000);

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that in 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, re-allocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, specifically, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace Building (reallocated EUR 17.8 million in addition to EUR 15 million earmarked in the budget for 2009); invites the General Secretariat of the Council to provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this, as well as the total costs of the Residence Palace Building, and questions whether the projected amount will be reached or could the cost be higher than estimated;deleted

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that in 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, re-allocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, specifically, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace Building (reallocated EUR 17.8 million in addition to EUR 15 million earmarked in the budget for 2009); invites the General Secretariat of the Council to provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this, as well as the total costs of the Residence Palace Building as initially planned, and questions whether the projected amount will be reached or could the cost be higher than estimated;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Requests the Council to provide additional information on ‘technical provision of EUR 25 million for the launch of the European Council 2010’ (cf. the financial activity report – 11327/10, FIN 278 - point 3.1, IV bullet);deleted

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Takes note of the budgetary constraints many Member States face as a result of the financial and economic crisis and the need to critically review savings potentials at all levels, including at Union level; in light of this situation, stresses that real savings could be achieved if the Parliament would temporarily hold its activities in only one seat; calls on the Council to analyse this matter and make a decision;

Amendment 4 #

Marta ANDREASEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. Reiterates that the expenditure of the Council ought to be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other Union institutions, although the fact that the Parliament discharges itself is an anomaly that needs to be addressed, and suggests that the most appropriate approach would be as expressed in its above-mentioned resolution of 16 June 2010, in particular, that ‘such scrutiny is based on the following written documents submitted by all institutions:

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. Reiterates that the expenditure of the Council ought to be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other Union institutions, and suggests that the most appropriate approach would be as ~~express~~indicated in its ~~above-mentioned~~ resolution of 16 June 2010, in particular, that ''such scrutiny is based on the following written documents submitted by all institutions'':

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Strongly believes that it is necessary to set up a reliable, long-term system of cooperation between the Parliament and the Council on the discharge procedure on a mutually acceptable basis; repeats its position to replace the 'gentlemen's agreement' with a formal agreement that takes account of the Union's principle of taking decisions "as openly as possible" (Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union);

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Notes with concern~~Deeply regrets that the Council Presidency declined the invitations to attend the meeting of the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, where it was planned to discuss Council Presidency's standing on the proposed procedure and the possible modalities of cooperation as regards the discharge, and that also the Secretary-General of the Council declined to attend the meeting of the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure and to exchange views on the Council discharge procedure;

Amendment 8 #

Marta ANDREASEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes the proposal on the organisation of relations between the Parliament and the Council regarding their respective budgets, as annexed to the letter of Secretary- General of the Council of 30 September 2010; ~~does not share the standpoint of that proposal, and believes that a distinction should be maintained with regard to the different roles of~~notes that in the absence of openness from the Parliament ~~and~~towards the Council ~~in the discharge procedure and in the budgetary procedure; notes that~~, the Council Presidency and the General Secretariat of the Council declined to attend the meeting of the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure and to provide information and answers to questions on the Council discharge for the financial year 2009, as well as to provide written replies to the questionnaire as submitted by the rapporteur; believes that further efforts should be made in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes the proposal on the organisation of relations between the Parliament and the Council regarding their respective budgets, as annexed to the letter of Secretary- General of the Council of 30 September 2010; d~~oes not share~~isagrees with the standpoints of that proposal, and ~~believ~~reiterates that a distinction ~~should~~must be maintained with regard to the different roles of the Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure and in the budgetary procedure~~; note~~, since these are two separate procedures and at no time and under no circumstances can the Council be anything other than fully accountable to the public for the funds entrusted to it; deeply regrets that the Council Presidency and the General Secretariat of the Council declined to attend the meeting of the Committee responsible for the discharge procedure ~~and~~ to provide information and answers to questions on the Council discharge for the financial year 2009, a~~s well as~~nd that they also declined to provide written replies to the questionnaire as submitted by the rapporteur; ~~believes that further efforts should be made in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution;~~

source: PE-458.798

2011/09/08 CONT 5 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas it is also important to ensure greater transparency in the application of Union legislation, and European citizens have the right to be better informed in this respect too; reiterates its resolve to reach an agreement with the Council as soon as possible on the subject of correlation tables,

Amendment 2 #

Marta ANDREASEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas - regarding the Council's argument of reciprocity - the fact that Parliament discharges itself is indeed an anomaly that needs to be addressed inter- institutionally,

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is of the opinion that, in view of the purpose of Article 319 of the TFEU, Parliament is ~~held and entitl~~entitled and, indeed, required to adopt separate decisions on the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget by the other institutions; considers that the Council has explicitly confirmed this principle in its Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service1 ;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that the abovementioned legal reasoning as well as the ~~practice, which has been established for many years,~~established practice of adopting individual decisions on discharge in respect of each Union institution and body support this interpretation and, in addition, the decisions on discharge need to be adopted separately for operational reasons in order to avoid discontinuity and disruption of Union action;

Amendment 5 #