BETA


2012/2285(INI) Annual report 2011 on the protection of EU's financial interests - Fight against fraud

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead CONT VAUGHAN Derek (icon: S&D S&D) MACOVEI Monica (icon: PPE PPE), STAES Bart (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ANDREASEN Marta (icon: ECR ECR), EHRENHAUSER Martin (icon: NA NA)
Committee Opinion AFET WEBER Renate (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion PECH
Committee Opinion REGI
Committee Opinion BUDG
Committee Opinion AGRI WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz (icon: ECR ECR)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2013/11/28
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2013/07/03
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2013/07/03
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

- General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the resolution recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

Parliament calls on the Commission to consider the link between Member State reporting on fraud and the lack of a harmonised criminal law setting out a common definition of fraudulent behaviour and offences in the field of protecting the Union's financial interests. It points out that the criminal law systems of the Member States have been harmonised to only a limited extent.

Members call for ambitious European legislation and improved cooperation and coordination between all Member States in order to ensure that severe sanctions are imposed on fraudsters and to deter fraudulent behaviour.

- Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: Parliament regrets that the Commission’s report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria . This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The resolution urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement . It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

- Irregularities: Parliament notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud and calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situatio n.

- e-Government: Parliament stresses that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draws attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced, making it more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

- Investigative journalism: Parliament considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

- Mandatory national declarations: Parliament recalls that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, it called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; it regrets that no further steps have been taken in that direction .

- Recovery of funds: Parliament acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. It notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision . It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs , which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe .

- Revenue – own resources: Parliament emphasises that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. It stresses that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen . Fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

The resolution calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

- Customs: Parliament is deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. It stresses that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation . It is concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible .

- Modernised Customs Code (MCC): Parliament deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement .

- VAT: the resolution recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT . It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated , given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

- Cigarette smuggling: the resolution emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations , and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

- Expenditure: Parliament recalls that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. It deplores that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. It emphasises that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recalls that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds . It, once more, reiterates its call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

- Agriculture: Parliament points out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. It calls for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

It remains concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. It regrets that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud . It therefore calls on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

- Cohesion policy: Parliament welcomes the fact that, in 2011, the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93% in comparison with 69% in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds .

- External relations, aid and enlargement: Parliament notes with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective . It therefore calls on the Commission improve its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

- OLAF: Parliament reiterates that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. It considers that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee , and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. It welcomes the anti-fraud strategy , inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. It notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States and welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

Parliament takes note of the concerns raised by the OLAF Supervisory Committee in its 2012 Activity Report, especially with regard to the case transmitted in October 2012 to the national judicial authorities and leading to the resignation of a member of the European Commission . It is of the opinion that these concerns should be the subject of a thorough examination by the responsible judicial authorities.

Furthermore, Parliament is concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee . It notes that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcomings should be tackled immediately.

The resolution calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

- OLAF’s investigative measures: Parliament reiterates that no violation of fundamental rights by OLAF or any other Commission services can be accepted, referring in this respect to the OLAF Supervisory Committee's view that OLAF may have gone beyond the investigative measures that it is entitled to take as regards the preparation of the content of a telephone conversation for a third party with a person subject to the investigation and being present during that conversation, which was recorded. It expects OLAF to provide a satisfactory explanation of the legal basis for its investigative measures such as the recording of telephone conversations.

- Annulments of OLAF decisions: Parliament welcomes the statement made in the Supervisory Committee's 2012 Activity Report that all actions for annulment of OLAF's decisions were rejected as inadmissible by the Court of Justice, while the Ombudsman did not find any instance of maladministration. It further points out that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) found that OLAF generally complied with the data protection rules, with the exception of one case where the EDPS considered that OLAF violated the right to protection of personal data by unnecessarily disclosing the identity of a whistleblower to his institution.

- Recording of telephone conversations: the resolution calls on OLAF to inform Parliament's competent committee of the legal basis that authorises it to assist in and prepare the recording of telephone conversations of private persons without their prior consent and to use the contents for purposes of administrative investigations. Parliament reiterates its call on OLAF to provide Parliament - in line with a similar request by the Council - with a legal analysis of the legality of those records in the Member States.

Parliament is deeply concerned about the effectiveness and internal functioning of OLAF, while considering that a strong and well-managed OLAF is essential in the fight against fraud and corruption where European taxpayers' money is involved. It urges the Commission, therefore, in cooperation with Parliament's competent committee and when answering its questions, to analyse the legality of OLAF's operations, to take all necessary measures to improve the management of OLAF, and to formulate practical solutions to remedy shortcomings before the end of 2013. It calls on the Commission and the Council, in the meantime, to stall all discussions and decisions on the introduction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) .

- The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: Parliament welcomes the fact that, in response to its request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

Lastly, it looks forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

Documents
2013/07/03
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2013/07/02
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2013/06/04
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

- Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

- Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

- e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to s trengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

- Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs , which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU , i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

T he report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision . They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible .

Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France , Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom , especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %.

OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy , inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States . It welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcomings should be tackled immediately.

The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity : the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office , which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

Documents
2013/05/28
   EP - Vote in committee
2013/05/20
   UK_HOUSE-OF-LORDS - Contribution
Documents
2013/05/08
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2013/04/26
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2013/04/12
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/03/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2013/01/29
   EP - WEBER Renate (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2012/12/03
   EP - VAUGHAN Derek (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2012/12/03
   EP - WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2012/11/22
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2012/07/19
   EC - Non-legislative basic document
Details

PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud

CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts.

Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being:

· an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

· the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border;

· the Communication on the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations;

· the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU;

· proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules ;

· the Communication on the future of VAT.

The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring.

Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget : the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools.

The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities . This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities.

Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy : in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties.

The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas.

In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection.

Improvement in recovery procedures : in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid.

It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long .

European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud : on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report , which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors.

The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports.

In conclusion , the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

2012/07/19
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud

CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts.

Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being:

· an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

· the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border;

· the Communication on the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations;

· the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU;

· proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules ;

· the Communication on the future of VAT.

The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring.

Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget : the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools.

The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities . This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities.

Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy : in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties.

The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas.

In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection.

Improvement in recovery procedures : in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid.

It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long .

European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud : on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report , which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors.

The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports.

In conclusion , the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

Documents

Votes

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 5/1 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 657, 0: 10, -: 2
DE FR GB IT ES PL NL RO CZ EL HU BE PT AT BG SE HR SK IE DK FI LT LV SI EE LU MT CY
Total
89
68
62
59
48
44
26
26
20
21
20
19
17
18
15
14
12
12
11
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
5
6
icon: PPE PPE
245

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
171

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
66

Spain ALDE

1

Greece ALDE

1
3

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
42

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

3
3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: EFD EFD
28

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 9/2 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 550, -: 119, 0: 13
DE FR ES IT RO PL EL HU BE BG AT SK PT IE NL FI HR LT LV SI SE EE LU MT CZ CY DK GB
Total
91
68
48
61
27
45
21
20
22
16
18
13
17
11
26
10
12
8
9
7
14
6
5
5
19
6
12
64
icon: PPE PPE
243

Sweden PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2
2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
176

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1
5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Greece EFD

2

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
44

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 11 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 668, 0: 12, -: 9
DE FR IT GB ES PL RO NL BE EL CZ PT HU BG SE AT DK SK HR IE FI LT LV SI EE CY LU MT
Total
91
69
61
64
48
46
27
26
22
21
19
18
21
16
14
18
13
13
12
11
10
9
9
8
6
6
5
5
icon: PPE PPE
247

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
177

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Greece ALDE

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
55

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
45

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

3
3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
29

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

5

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Bulgaria NI

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 12/2 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 490, -: 200, 0: 6
DE FR GB PL NL BE HU BG FI PT ES LV RO CZ IE AT SE SI EE LT LU DK SK HR CY EL MT IT
Total
91
71
63
47
26
22
21
16
10
18
51
9
27
20
11
18
14
8
6
9
5
13
13
12
6
21
5
62
icon: PPE PPE
249

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
2

Malta PPE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Finland ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Greece ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
45

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Bulgaria NI

1

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

Against (1)

2
icon: EFD EFD
29

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
180

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

Against (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1
2

Malta S&D

3

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 14/2 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 566, -: 110, 0: 15
DE FR ES IT RO PL BE HU EL BG PT SK AT IE NL SE SI FI HR LT LV EE LU MT CY DK GB CZ
Total
91
70
51
63
27
47
21
21
20
14
18
13
17
11
26
14
8
10
12
9
9
6
5
5
6
13
63
20
icon: PPE PPE
250

Sweden PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2
2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
178

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
55

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1
5
icon: EFD EFD
29

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3
icon: ECR ECR
45

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 20/1 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 679, -: 5, 0: 2
DE FR GB IT ES PL RO NL BE EL HU CZ PT BG AT SE DK SK HR IE FI LT LV SI EE LU CY MT
Total
89
70
61
63
51
46
27
26
22
21
21
18
17
16
18
14
13
13
12
11
10
9
9
7
6
5
5
5
icon: PPE PPE
247

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
177

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Greece ALDE

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
43

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 25 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 600, -: 79, 0: 6
DE FR ES IT RO PL EL HU BE PT BG NL SK AT IE DK SE FI HR LT SI LV EE LU MT CZ CY GB
Total
89
71
51
60
27
47
21
21
21
18
16
26
13
17
11
12
14
10
12
8
8
9
6
5
5
20
6
60
icon: PPE PPE
249

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Sweden PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
174

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3
3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
27

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Greece EFD

2

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
44

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 26 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 583, -: 86, 0: 5
DE FR ES IT RO PL BE EL BG PT AT HU NL SK HR LT SE IE DK SI FI LV EE MT CZ LU CY GB
Total
91
64
51
63
27
46
22
21
16
17
18
20
26
13
12
9
13
10
10
8
10
9
6
5
20
3
6
57
icon: PPE PPE
243

Sweden PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
177

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
52

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: NI NI
25

France NI

Against (1)

1

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3
icon: EFD EFD
28

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
44

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 34/2 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 597, -: 76, 0: 7
DE FR ES IT RO PL PT BE AT EL BG SE HU SK NL IE DK FI LT HR SI LV EE CY LU MT CZ GB
Total
90
70
51
60
27
45
18
22
18
19
16
14
20
13
25
11
12
10
9
11
8
9
6
6
5
5
20
59
icon: PPE PPE
245

Sweden PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
174

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
3

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3
5
icon: ECR ECR
43

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 60/1 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 675, -: 4, 0: 1
DE FR IT GB ES PL RO NL BE EL HU CZ PT AT BG SE SK DK HR IE FI LT LV SI EE CY LU MT
Total
87
69
61
58
51
47
27
26
22
21
21
18
18
18
16
14
13
12
12
11
10
9
8
8
6
6
5
5
icon: PPE PPE
243

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
178

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
42

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Spain NI

1
2

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1
icon: EFD EFD
28

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - Am 8 S #

2013/07/03 Outcome: -: 459, +: 209, 0: 5
IT DK CY MT HR EL PT CZ SK SE IE LV RO LT LU BG SI EE AT FI BE HU NL GB PL FR DE ES
Total
63
11
5
5
12
21
17
20
13
13
11
9
25
9
5
16
8
6
18
10
22
21
26
56
48
64
88
50
icon: S&D S&D
174
3

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Bulgaria S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3
3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: EFD EFD
27

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

Against (1)

2

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1
4

Poland EFD

For (1)

3

France EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
24
2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

3

Spain NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
44

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Denmark ALDE

2

Greece ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1
3

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Finland ALDE

2
icon: PPE PPE
243

Cyprus PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 71 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 515, -: 157
DE FR PL ES GB IT NL BE HU BG EL FI PT IE LV DK SE CZ AT LT SK RO EE LU SI HR CY MT
Total
89
66
48
49
56
61
25
21
21
16
20
10
18
11
9
12
14
20
18
9
13
25
5
4
8
12
6
5
icon: PPE PPE
243

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Sweden PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Czechia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2
2

Malta PPE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Spain ALDE

1

Greece ALDE

1

Finland ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Against (1)

2
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
44

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
3

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
25

France NI

For (1)

1

Spain NI

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Romania NI

Against (1)

2
icon: EFD EFD
27

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
173

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

3

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Sweden S&D

For (1)

4

Lithuania S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

2

Malta S&D

3

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - Am 20 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 638, -: 37, 0: 4
DE FR GB ES PL NL BE RO HU CZ EL PT AT BG SK DK SE HR IE FI LT LV SI CY LU EE MT IT
Total
90
67
56
51
47
26
22
25
21
20
21
16
18
16
13
12
14
12
11
10
9
9
8
6
5
6
5
62
icon: PPE PPE
245

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Sweden PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2
2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
176

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

Against (1)

3

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Romania ALDE

Against (1)

3

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Abstain (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2
3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
44

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
3

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
25

France NI

For (1)

1

Spain NI

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1
2

Bulgaria NI

1
icon: EFD EFD
26

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - Am 13 S #

2013/07/03 Outcome: -: 466, +: 206, 0: 5
DK CY MT CZ HR IT EL LT PT SE IE SK LU SI EE LV RO BG FI AT BE HU NL DE PL GB FR ES
Total
12
6
5
20
12
63
21
9
18
14
11
13
5
8
6
9
25
16
10
18
22
21
26
89
43
55
68
51
icon: S&D S&D
177

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Bulgaria S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3
3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
25

Denmark EFD

1

Greece EFD

Against (1)

2

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

1
4

France EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: NI NI
25
2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
3

France NI

Against (1)

1

Spain NI

1
icon: ECR ECR
42

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2
4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
71

Denmark ALDE

2

Greece ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1
3

Finland ALDE

2
icon: PPE PPE
246

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2

Sweden PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

A7-0197/2013 - Derek Vaughan - § 89 #

2013/07/03 Outcome: +: 535, -: 103, 0: 21
DE FR ES IT RO PL EL HU BE BG SK AT PT IE HR NL SE SI LT LV FI LU EE MT CY DK CZ GB
Total
87
67
49
61
24
41
20
20
20
16
13
18
18
11
11
26
14
8
9
9
10
5
6
4
6
12
19
54
icon: PPE PPE
240

Sweden PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Denmark PPE

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
170

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Finland S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Romania ALDE

Abstain (1)

3

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Abstain (1)

3

Denmark ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
57

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: PSE PSE
1

Bulgaria PSE

1
icon: NI NI
24

Spain NI

1
2

Hungary NI

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
24

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

France GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
41

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
81 2012/2285(INI)
2013/02/27 AGRI 12 amendments...
source: PE-506.137
2013/04/18 AFET 13 amendments...
source: PE-510.501
2013/04/26 CONT 56 amendments...
source: PE-510.569

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0
date
2012-07-19T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Non-legislative basic document
body
EC
docs/5
date
2013-05-21T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2012)0408 title: COM(2012)0408
type
Contribution
body
UK_HOUSE-OF-LORDS
docs/6
date
2013-05-20T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2012)0408 title: COM(2012)0408
type
Contribution
body
UK_HOUSE-OF-LORDS
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE504.314&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-504314_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE502.018
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-502018_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.569
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-510569_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE504.221&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-504221_EN.html
events/0
date
2012-07-19T00:00:00
type
Non-legislative basic document published
body
EC
docs
summary
events/0
date
2012-07-19T00:00:00
type
Non-legislative basic document published
body
EC
docs
summary
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/2/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/3
date
2013-06-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0197_EN.html title: A7-0197/2013
summary
events/3
date
2013-06-04T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0197_EN.html title: A7-0197/2013
summary
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130702&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2012-07-02-TOC_EN.html
events/6
date
2013-07-03T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0318_EN.html title: T7-0318/2013
summary
events/6
date
2013-07-03T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0318_EN.html title: T7-0318/2013
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: VAUGHAN Derek date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VAUGHAN Derek group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
rapporteur
name: WEBER Renate date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2013-01-29T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WEBER Renate group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
rapporteur
name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
docs/4/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-197&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0197_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-318
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0318_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2012-07-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2012&nu_doc=408 title: COM(2012)0408 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52012DC0408:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2012-11-22T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: NI name: EHRENHAUSER Martin responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • date: 2013-05-28T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: NI name: EHRENHAUSER Martin responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • date: 2013-06-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-197&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0197/2013 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2013-07-02T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130702&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2013-07-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=23038&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-318 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0318/2013 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Budget commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VAUGHAN Derek group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
AFET
date
2013-01-29T00:00:00
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2013-01-29T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WEBER Renate group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
AGRI
date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
rapporteur
group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
opinion
False
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
opinion
False
committees/3
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
CONT
date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgetary Control
rapporteur
group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Fisheries
committee
PECH
committees/5
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Fisheries
committee
PECH
opinion
False
committees/5
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
docs
  • date: 2013-03-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE504.314&secondRef=02 title: PE504.314 committee: AGRI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2013-04-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE502.018 title: PE502.018 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2013-04-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.569 title: PE510.569 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2013-05-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE504.221&secondRef=02 title: PE504.221 committee: AFET type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2013-11-28T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=23038&j=0&l=en title: SP(2013)627 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2013-05-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2012)0408 title: COM(2012)0408 type: Contribution body: UK_HOUSE-OF-LORDS
events
  • date: 2012-07-19T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2012&nu_doc=0408 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2012)0408 summary: PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts. Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being: · an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF); · the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border; · the Communication on the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations; · the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU; · proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules ; · the Communication on the future of VAT. The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring. Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget : the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools. The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities . This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities. Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy : in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties. The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities. Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas. In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection. Improvement in recovery procedures : in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long . European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud : on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report , which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors. The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports. In conclusion , the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.
  • date: 2012-11-22T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2013-05-28T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2013-06-04T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-197&language=EN title: A7-0197/2013 summary: The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud. General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure. - Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities. - Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation. - e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to s trengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud. - Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States. Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction. Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs , which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe. Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU , i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen. Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States. T he report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard. Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision . They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible . Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement. VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion. Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border. Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website. Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission. They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France , Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom , especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible. Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds. External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds. They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %. OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy , inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States . It welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible. Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcomings should be tackled immediately. The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States. The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity : the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General. Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office , which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.
  • date: 2013-07-02T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130702&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2013-07-03T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=23038&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2013-07-03T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-318 title: T7-0318/2013 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud. - General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the resolution recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure. Parliament calls on the Commission to consider the link between Member State reporting on fraud and the lack of a harmonised criminal law setting out a common definition of fraudulent behaviour and offences in the field of protecting the Union's financial interests. It points out that the criminal law systems of the Member States have been harmonised to only a limited extent. Members call for ambitious European legislation and improved cooperation and coordination between all Member States in order to ensure that severe sanctions are imposed on fraudsters and to deter fraudulent behaviour. - Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: Parliament regrets that the Commission’s report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria . This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The resolution urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement . It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities. - Irregularities: Parliament notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud and calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situatio n. - e-Government: Parliament stresses that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draws attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced, making it more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud. - Investigative journalism: Parliament considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States. - Mandatory national declarations: Parliament recalls that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, it called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; it regrets that no further steps have been taken in that direction . - Recovery of funds: Parliament acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. It notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision . It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs , which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe . - Revenue – own resources: Parliament emphasises that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. It stresses that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen . Fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States. The resolution calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard. - Customs: Parliament is deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. It stresses that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation . It is concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible . - Modernised Customs Code (MCC): Parliament deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement . - VAT: the resolution recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT . It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated , given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion. - Cigarette smuggling: the resolution emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations , and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border. - Expenditure: Parliament recalls that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. It deplores that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. It emphasises that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recalls that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds . It, once more, reiterates its call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website. - Agriculture: Parliament points out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. It calls for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission. It remains concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. It regrets that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud . It therefore calls on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible. - Cohesion policy: Parliament welcomes the fact that, in 2011, the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93% in comparison with 69% in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds . - External relations, aid and enlargement: Parliament notes with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective . It therefore calls on the Commission improve its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds. - OLAF: Parliament reiterates that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. It considers that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee , and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. It welcomes the anti-fraud strategy , inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. It notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States and welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible. Parliament takes note of the concerns raised by the OLAF Supervisory Committee in its 2012 Activity Report, especially with regard to the case transmitted in October 2012 to the national judicial authorities and leading to the resignation of a member of the European Commission . It is of the opinion that these concerns should be the subject of a thorough examination by the responsible judicial authorities. Furthermore, Parliament is concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee . It notes that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcomings should be tackled immediately. The resolution calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States. - OLAF’s investigative measures: Parliament reiterates that no violation of fundamental rights by OLAF or any other Commission services can be accepted, referring in this respect to the OLAF Supervisory Committee's view that OLAF may have gone beyond the investigative measures that it is entitled to take as regards the preparation of the content of a telephone conversation for a third party with a person subject to the investigation and being present during that conversation, which was recorded. It expects OLAF to provide a satisfactory explanation of the legal basis for its investigative measures such as the recording of telephone conversations. - Annulments of OLAF decisions: Parliament welcomes the statement made in the Supervisory Committee's 2012 Activity Report that all actions for annulment of OLAF's decisions were rejected as inadmissible by the Court of Justice, while the Ombudsman did not find any instance of maladministration. It further points out that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) found that OLAF generally complied with the data protection rules, with the exception of one case where the EDPS considered that OLAF violated the right to protection of personal data by unnecessarily disclosing the identity of a whistleblower to his institution. - Recording of telephone conversations: the resolution calls on OLAF to inform Parliament's competent committee of the legal basis that authorises it to assist in and prepare the recording of telephone conversations of private persons without their prior consent and to use the contents for purposes of administrative investigations. Parliament reiterates its call on OLAF to provide Parliament - in line with a similar request by the Council - with a legal analysis of the legality of those records in the Member States. Parliament is deeply concerned about the effectiveness and internal functioning of OLAF, while considering that a strong and well-managed OLAF is essential in the fight against fraud and corruption where European taxpayers' money is involved. It urges the Commission, therefore, in cooperation with Parliament's competent committee and when answering its questions, to analyse the legality of OLAF's operations, to take all necessary measures to improve the management of OLAF, and to formulate practical solutions to remedy shortcomings before the end of 2013. It calls on the Commission and the Council, in the meantime, to stall all discussions and decisions on the introduction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) . - The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: Parliament welcomes the fact that, in response to its request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General. Lastly, it looks forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.
  • date: 2013-07-03T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
CONT/7/11212
New
  • CONT/7/11212
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 7.30.30.06 Action to combat economic fraud
  • 8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
New
7.30.30.06
Action to combat economic fraud and corruption
8.70.04
Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52012DC0408:EN
activities/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0408/COM_COM(2012)0408_FR.pdf
New
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2012&nu_doc=408
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52012DC0408:EN
activities/0
date
2012-07-19T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0408/COM_COM(2012)0408_FR.pdf title: COM(2012)0408 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52012DC0408:EN
type
Non-legislative basic document
body
EC
commission
DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
activities/0/body
Old
EP
New
EC
activities/0/commission
  • DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
activities/0/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
activities/0/date
Old
2012-11-22T00:00:00
New
2012-07-19T00:00:00
activities/0/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0408/COM_COM(2012)0408_FR.pdf title: COM(2012)0408 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52012DC0408:EN
activities/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Non-legislative basic document published
activities/1/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: NI name: EHRENHAUSER Martin responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
activities/1/date
Old
2013-04-26T00:00:00
New
2012-11-22T00:00:00
activities/1/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.569 type: Amendments tabled in committee title: PE510.569
activities/1/type
Old
Amendments tabled in committee
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
activities/2/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: NI name: EHRENHAUSER Martin responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
activities/2/date
Old
2013-04-12T00:00:00
New
2013-05-28T00:00:00
activities/2/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE502.018 type: Committee draft report title: PE502.018
activities/2/type
Old
Committee draft report
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
activities/3/docs/0/text/0
Old

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

- Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

- Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

- e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

- Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs, which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

The report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible.

Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %.

OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy, inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States. It  welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcoming should be tackled immediately.

The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

New

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

- Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

- Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

- e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

- Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs, which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

The report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible.

Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %.

OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy, inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States. It welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcomings should be tackled immediately.

The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

activities/4/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
activities/4/date
Old
2013-05-28T00:00:00
New
2013-07-02T00:00:00
activities/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130702&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/4/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/5/docs/0
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=23038&l=en
type
Results of vote in Parliament
title
Results of vote in Parliament
activities/5/docs/1/text
  • The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

    - General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the resolution recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

    Parliament calls on the Commission to consider the link between Member State reporting on fraud and the lack of a harmonised criminal law setting out a common definition of fraudulent behaviour and offences in the field of protecting the Union's financial interests. It points out that the criminal law systems of the Member States have been harmonised to only a limited extent.

    Members call for ambitious European legislation and improved cooperation and coordination between all Member States in order to ensure that severe sanctions are imposed on fraudsters and to deter fraudulent behaviour.

    - Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: Parliament regrets that the Commission’s report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The resolution urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

    - Irregularities: Parliament notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud and calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

    - e-Government: Parliament stresses that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draws attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced, making it more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

    - Investigative journalism: Parliament considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

    - Mandatory national declarations: Parliament recalls that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, it called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; it regrets that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

    - Recovery of funds: Parliament acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. It notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs, which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

    - Revenue – own resources: Parliament emphasises that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. It stresses that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen. Fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

    The resolution calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

    - Customs: Parliament is deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. It stresses that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. It is concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible.

    - Modernised Customs Code (MCC): Parliament deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

    - VAT: the resolution recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

    - Cigarette smuggling: the resolution emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

    - Expenditure: Parliament recalls that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. It deplores that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. It emphasises that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recalls that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. It, once more, reiterates its call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

    - Agriculture: Parliament points out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. It calls for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

    It remains concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. It regrets that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. It therefore calls on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

    - Cohesion policy: Parliament welcomes the fact that, in 2011, the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93% in comparison with 69% in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

    - External relations, aid and enlargement: Parliament notes with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. It therefore calls on the Commission improve its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

    - OLAF: Parliament reiterates that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. It considers that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. It welcomes the anti-fraud strategy, inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. It notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States and welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

    Parliament takes note of the concerns raised by the OLAF Supervisory Committee in its 2012 Activity Report, especially with regard to the case transmitted in October 2012 to the national judicial authorities and leading to the resignation of a member of the European Commission. It is of the opinion that these concerns should be the subject of a thorough examination by the responsible judicial authorities.

    Furthermore, Parliament is concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. It notes that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcomings should be tackled immediately.

    The resolution calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

    - OLAF’s investigative measures: Parliament reiterates that no violation of fundamental rights by OLAF or any other Commission services can be accepted, referring in this respect to the OLAF Supervisory Committee's view that OLAF may have gone beyond the investigative measures that it is entitled to take as regards the preparation of the content of a telephone conversation for a third party with a person subject to the investigation and being present during that conversation, which was recorded. It expects OLAF to provide a satisfactory explanation of the legal basis for its investigative measures such as the recording of telephone conversations.

    - Annulments of OLAF decisions: Parliament welcomes the statement made in the Supervisory Committee's 2012 Activity Report that all actions for annulment of OLAF's decisions were rejected as inadmissible by the Court of Justice, while the Ombudsman did not find any instance of maladministration. It further points out that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) found that OLAF generally complied with the data protection rules, with the exception of one case where the EDPS considered that OLAF violated the right to protection of personal data by unnecessarily disclosing the identity of a whistleblower to his institution.

    - Recording of telephone conversations: the resolution calls on OLAF to inform Parliament's competent committee of the legal basis that authorises it to assist in and prepare the recording of telephone conversations of private persons without their prior consent and to use the contents for purposes of administrative investigations. Parliament reiterates its call on OLAF to provide Parliament - in line with a similar request by the Council - with a legal analysis of the legality of those records in the Member States.

    Parliament is deeply concerned about the effectiveness and internal functioning of OLAF, while considering that a strong and well-managed OLAF is essential in the fight against fraud and corruption where European taxpayers' money is involved. It urges the Commission, therefore, in cooperation with Parliament's competent committee and when answering its questions, to analyse the legality of OLAF's operations, to take all necessary measures to improve the management of OLAF, and to formulate practical solutions to remedy shortcomings before the end of 2013. It calls on the Commission and the Council, in the meantime, to stall all discussions and decisions on the introduction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO).

    - The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: Parliament welcomes the fact that, in response to its request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

    Lastly, it looks forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

activities/5/type
Old
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
New
Results of vote in Parliament
activities/6
date
2013-07-02T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=[%EY][%m][%d]&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
body
EP
type
Debate in Parliament
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de189630fb8127435bdc48f
New
4f1adc87b819f207b3000121
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de1895e0fb8127435bdc489
New
4f1adcabb819f207b300012e
committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de1893d0fb8127435bdc45a
New
4f1adc56b819f207b3000111
committees/3/shadows
  • group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica
  • group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart
  • group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta
  • group: NI name: EHRENHAUSER Martin
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
procedure/legal_basis/0
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048
New
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
activities/7/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-318 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0318/2013
activities/7/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/6/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=[%EY][%m][%d]&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/6/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/5/docs/0/text/0
Old

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

- Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

- Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

- e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

- Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs, which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

The report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible.

Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %.

OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy, inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States. It  welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcoming should be tackled immediately.

The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

New

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

- Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

- Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

- e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

- Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs, which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

The report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible.

Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %.

OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy, inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States. It  welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcoming should be tackled immediately.

The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

activities/5/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Derek Vaughn (S&D, UK) on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests - Fight against fraud.

    General comments: while stressing that countering fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is the obligation of the Commission and the Member States, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the report recalls that it is equally important to ensure the protection of those financial interests both at the level of collection of the EU’s resources and at the level of expenditure.

    - Definitions and standard evaluation criteria: the committee regrets that the report is limited to the data reported by the Member States and points out that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria. This makes it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level and it is thus impossible to evaluate the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud. The report urges, therefore, that standard evaluation criteria for irregularities and fraud be laid down in all Member States and combined with appropriate penalties for those guilty of infringement. It also calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities.

    - Irregularities: the committee notes that, according to the Commission’s annual report, in 2011, 1 230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that their financial impact decreased by 37% in comparison with 2010 and amounted to EUR 404 million. It acknowledges that cohesion policy and agriculture remain the two main areas suffering from the highest level of fraud with a respective estimated financial impact of EUR 204 million and EUR 77 million. It calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that the information provided on the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation.

    - e-Government: Members stress that the European Union needs to step up efforts to strengthen the principles of eGovernment which would set the conditions for greater transparency in public finances and draw attention to the fact that electronic transactions, unlike cash transactions, are referenced and it therefore becomes more difficult to commit fraud and easier to identify suspected cases of fraud.

    - Investigative journalism: the committee emphasises that 233 investigative reports have been published on cases of fraud related to the misuse of EU funds over a period of 5 years within the 27 Member States and considers that investigative journalism has played a major role in exposing such fraud and represents a valuable source of information to be considered by OLAF and law enforcement or other relevant authorities in Member States.

    Mandatory national declarations: Members recall that in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2009, Parliament called for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; they regret that no further steps have been taken in that direction.

    Recovery of funds: Members acknowledge that the amount to be recovered following irregularities detected in 2011 reached EUR 321 million, of which EUR 166 million has already been recovered by the Member States: this represents a recovery rate for traditional own resources of 52% in 2011 compared to 46% in 2010. The committee notes OLAF’s overview of progress on judicial actions in actions created between 2006-2011, according to which more than half of actions are pending a judicial decision. It is of the opinion that special attention should be paid to cases related to fraud in customs, which is among the areas with the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe.

    Revenue – own resources: Members emphasise that tax evasion and avoidance represent a major risk for the EU public finances. They stress that an estimated EUR 1 trillion in public money is lost due to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, i.e. a rough yearly cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

    Owing to the mechanism of balancing the EU budget with GNI-based revenue, every euro lost to customs and VAT fraud has to be paid for by EU citizens. Members emphasise that fighting tax evasion should be given the highest priority by both the Commission and the Member States.

    The report calls on the Commission to strengthen its coordination with the Member States in order to collect reliable data on the customs and VAT gap in the respective countries and to report on a regular basis to Parliament in that regard.

    Customs: Members are deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in national customs supervision. They stress that the Customs Union is an area of exclusive competence of the EU and that it is therefore the Commission’s obligation to put in place all measures necessary to ensure that the customs authorities in the Member States act as if they were one, and to monitor their implementation. They emphasise that modern IT solutions and direct access to data are crucial for the effective functioning of the Customs Union and are concerned that in most Member States tax administrations have no direct access to customs data and that automated cross-checking with tax data is therefore not possible.

    Modernised Customs Code (MCC): the committee deplores the fact that the Commission and the Member States have been unable to ensure the timely implementation of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). It calls on the Commission to make an evaluation of the cost of postponing full application of the MCC, quantifying the budgetary consequences of such postponement.

    VAT: the report recalls that the correct operation of customs procedures has direct consequences for the calculation of VAT. It stresses that the model of VAT collection is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place and points to the need for real-time connection of business transactions with the tax authorities in order to combat tax evasion.

    Cigarette smuggling: the report emphasises that cigarette smuggling serves as an important source of financing for internationally structured criminal organisations, and highlights, therefore, the importance of strengthening the external dimension of the Commission’s action plan to fight against the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU Eastern border.

    Expenditure: Members recall that 94% of the EU budget is invested in the Member States, and that it is vitally important that all money is spent well. They deplore that most irregularities in EU spending are committed at national level. They emphasise that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key in order to detect fraud and recall that, in previous years, Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency as regards the beneficiaries of EU funds. They, once more, reiterate their call on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system which lists all beneficiaries of EU funds on the same website.

    Agriculture: Members point out that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in agriculture in 2011 does not reflect the actual situation and that the Commission, addressing the Member States, expressed its concern that the fraud figures reported might not be entirely reliable. They call for further cooperation and best-practice-sharing in the Member States in order to respond to and report cases of fraud to the Commission.

    They remain concerned by the suspiciously low fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially given their size and the amount of financial support received. They regret that, in its annual report, the Commission did not offer a definitive answer to the question of whether the low suspected fraud rates reported by these countries are the result of non-compliance with reporting principles or of the ability of the control systems put in place in these Member States to detect fraud. They therefore call on the aforementioned Member States to provide detailed and thorough explanations of their low rates of reported suspected fraud as soon as possible.

    Cohesion policy: the Committee welcomes the fact that in 2011 the Commission completed financial corrections for EUR 624 million out of EUR 673 million and that the recovery rate for Cohesion Policy improved to 93 % in comparison with 69 % in 2010. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to simplify the relevant rules on public procurement and the procedural rules for management of the Structural Funds.

    External relations, aid and enlargement: Members note with concern that the Court of Auditors pointed to errors in final payments that had not been detected by Commission controls, and concluded that the controls applied by the Commission are not fully effective. They therefore call on the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the discharge opinion with a view to improving its monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the efficient and appropriate expenditure of funds.

    They take note of the decrease in the number and the financial impact of irregularities detected with regard to the pre-accession funds examined in the 2011 report and welcome the fact that the rate of recovery of EU resources unduly paid as part of pre-accession assistance has improved significantly, but notes that it still reaches only 60 %.

    OLAF: Members reiterate that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, including the independence and functioning of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They consider that this is all the more reason to strengthen the independence of the Supervisory Committee, and that the Committee should be empowered with the necessary means to fulfil its role effectively. They welcome the anti-fraud strategy, inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The committee notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States. It  welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible.

    Furthermore, Members are concerned about the reporting of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. They note that breaches of essential procedural requirements during preparatory investigations could affect the legality of the final decision taken on the basis of investigations by OLAF. Breaches may incur the legal liability of the Commission. These shortcoming should be tackled immediately.

    The report calls for potential fraud or irregularities which have less financial impact – in areas such as customs (where the threshold below which OLAF does not take action is EUR 1 million) and the structural funds (where the threshold is EUR 500 000) – to be reported to the Member States.

    The Commission’s initiatives in the area of anti-fraud activity: the committee welcomes the fact that, in response to Parliament’s request, the Commission is currently developing a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement concerning EU funds. In particular, it calls in this respect on the Commission to report on and evaluate the anti-fraud strategies established within each Directorate-General.

    Lastly, Members look forward to the submission by the Commission of the legislative proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU, as announced by the Commission for June 2013.

activities/5/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-197&language=EN
activities/6/type
Old
Debate scheduled
New
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/7/type
Old
Vote scheduled
New
Vote in plenary scheduled
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 138
procedure/subject/1
Old
8.70.04 Action to combat Community fraud
New
8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
activities/6/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate scheduled
activities/7
date
2013-07-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote scheduled
activities/5
date
2013-06-04T00:00:00
docs
type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0197/2013
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
activities/4/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2013-01-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AGRI date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2012-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
activities/4/type
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
activities/5/date
Old
2013-07-01T00:00:00
New
2013-07-02T00:00:00
activities/3/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.569
activities/4/date
Old
2013-05-27T00:00:00
New
2013-05-28T00:00:00
activities/3
date
2013-04-26T00:00:00
docs
type: Amendments tabled in committee title: PE510.569
body
EP
type
Amendments tabled in committee
activities/2/date
Old
2013-03-28T00:00:00
New
2013-04-12T00:00:00
activities/2
date
2013-03-28T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE502.018 type: Committee draft report title: PE502.018
body
EP
type
Committee draft report
activities/0
date
2012-07-19T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0408/COM_COM(2012)0408_FR.pdf title: COM(2012)0408 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52012DC0408:EN
body
EC
type
Non-legislative basic document
commission
DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
activities/0/body
Old
EP
New
EC
activities/0/commission
  • DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
activities/0/date
Old
2013-03-28T00:00:00
New
2012-07-19T00:00:00
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52012DC0408:EN
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud

    CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts.

    Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being:

    ·        an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

    ·        the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border;

    ·        the Communication  on the financial interests of the  European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations;

    ·        the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU;

    ·        proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules;

    ·        the Communication on the future of VAT.

    The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring.

    Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget: the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools.

    The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities. This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities.

    Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy: in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties.

    The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

    Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas.

    In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection.

    Improvement in recovery procedures: in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid.

    It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

    European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud: on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report, which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors.

    The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports.

    In conclusion, the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

activities/0/docs/0/title
Old
PE502.018
New
COM(2012)0408
activities/0/docs/0/type
Old
Committee draft report
New
Non-legislative basic document published
activities/0/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0408/COM_COM(2012)0408_FR.pdf
activities/0/type
Old
Committee draft report
New
Non-legislative basic document
activities/2
date
2013-03-28T00:00:00
docs
type: Committee draft report title: PE502.018
body
EP
type
Committee draft report
activities/3/date
Old
2013-05-21T00:00:00
New
2013-07-01T00:00:00
activities/3/date
Old
2013-04-22T00:00:00
New
2013-05-27T00:00:00
activities/0/docs/0/text/0
Old

PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud

CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts.

Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being:

·        an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

·        the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border;

·        the Communication  on the financial interests of the  European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations;

·        the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU;

·        proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules;

·        the Communication on the future of VAT.

The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring.

Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget: the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools.

The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities. This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities.

Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy: in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties.

The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas.

In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection.

Improvement in recovery procedures: in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid.

It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud: on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report, which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors.

The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports.

In conclusion, the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

New

PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud

CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts.

Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being:

·        an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

·        the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border;

·        the Communication  on the financial interests of the  European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations;

·        the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU;

·        proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules;

·        the Communication on the future of VAT.

The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring.

Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget: the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools.

The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities. This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities.

Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy: in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties.

The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas.

In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection.

Improvement in recovery procedures: in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid.

It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud: on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report, which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors.

The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports.

In conclusion, the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

activities/1/committees/0/date
2013-01-29T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
committees/0/date
2013-01-29T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: ALDE name: WEBER Renate
activities/2/date
Old
2013-02-18T00:00:00
New
2013-04-22T00:00:00
activities/3/date
Old
2013-04-16T00:00:00
New
2013-05-21T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/1/date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
committees/1/date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: ECR name: WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission’s 2011 annual report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud

    CONTENT: this report describes the measures taken at Union level to counter fraud. It also contains a summary and evaluation of the action taken by Member States in one specific area, based on the replies to a questionnaire focusing, this year, on the controls in the area of cohesion policy. The report then presents the latest information on fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported by the Member States and the situation on recovery of amounts.

    Progress: the report shows progress achieved in 2011 with the adoption of measures to improve the legal and administrative framework for protecting the EU’s financial interests, these being:

    ·        an amended proposal for a reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

    ·        the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, which also included the Action Plan to fight smuggling along the EU’s eastern border;

    ·        the Communication  on the financial interests of the  European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations;

    ·        the Communication on fighting corruption in the EU;

    ·        proposals for modernisation of the public procurement rules;

    ·        the Communication on the future of VAT.

    The report states that full implementation of these measures will require close cooperation between the EU institutions and t Member States, which the Commission will continue monitoring.

    Decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget: the analysis of irregularities in 2011 shows an overall decrease in reported irregularities and improvements in the results of recovery of EU resources unduly paid. In 2011, in all sectors combined, 1230 irregularities were reported as fraudulent, down by about 35% in comparison with 2010. The estimated financial impact of such irregularities reported as fraudulent also decreased, by about 37% in comparison with 2010 to EUR 404 million. This decrease was expected, following the acceleration in previous years, which, itself, was also the result of improvements in controls and tools.

    The report notes that while the overall picture is reassuring and demonstrates, amongst other things, the effects of the procedures the Commission has put in place to deal with irregularities and a general improvement in the management and control systems by Member States, there are still significant differences in the approaches adopted by Member States to report fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities. This raises questions about the adequacy of their national reporting systems. The Member States concerned should therefore report on how their control systems are being adapted to target areas where there is a high risk of fraud and irregularities.

    Improvement of anti-fraud systems in the area of cohesion policy: in 2011, the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in the area of cohesion policy and the related amounts both decreased significantly in comparison with the previous year, by 46% and 63% respectively. Trends highlighted in previous years were confirmed: Poland, Germany and Italy reported most of the cases (149 out of 276) and Germany remains the most successful Member State at completing criminal proceedings to establish fraud and impose penalties.

    The analysis of this year’s special topic - the measures taken and irregularities reported in the high-risk area of cohesion policy - shows improvements in the financial control and risk management system. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

    Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations by the Member States, including on the recovery of amounts from the final beneficiary in the area of cohesion policy. Furthermore, better fraud statistics are necessary to enable the Commission and the Member States to focus their efforts in higher-risk areas.

    In agriculture and cohesion policy areas, Member States are invited to explain the low number of “suspected fraud” cases reported and to report on the way in which their control systems target high-risk areas to improve fraud prevention and detection.

    Improvement in recovery procedures: in 2011, all 27 Member States recovered a combined total of approximately EUR 305 million related to cases detected between 1989 and 2011. The recovery process, in particular for pre-accession funds and direct expenditure, has been improved. The Commission invites Member States and pre-accession countries with low recovery rates to speed up their procedures, to make use of the available legal instruments and guarantees when irregularities are detected and to seize assets in cases where debts are not paid.

    It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

    European Parliament resolution on protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud: on 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted its resolution concerning the Commission’s 2009 report, which contains specific requests and covers a wide range of topics, such as publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, national management declarations and public procurement. It criticises the situation regarding recovery of EU funds in all areas and the low number of irregularities reported by certain Member States in particular sectors.

    The Commission has submitted a follow-up report to the Parliament indicating the practical action it intends to take in response to the resolution. In particular, the Commission pointed out that it had adopted a number of simplifications in all areas under shared management, with the aim of easing the workload on Member States. In return, the latter are expected to improve the quality, timeliness and completeness of their irregularity reports.

    In conclusion, the Commission recommends that all Member States put in place adequate anti-fraud measures aimed at both prevention and detection, especially those for which these kinds of results seem to be missing or insufficient. It is also clear from the data received that further progress has yet to be achieved, especially in the area of recovery where procedures are still relatively long.

activities/1/committees/3/date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/3/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
activities/2
date
2013-02-18T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading
activities/3
date
2013-04-16T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
committees/3/date
2012-12-03T00:00:00
committees/3/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: VAUGHAN Derek
activities/1
date
2012-11-22T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
CONT/7/11212
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities
  • date: 2012-07-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0408/COM_COM(2012)0408_FR.pdf title: COM(2012)0408 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52012DC0408:EN body: EC type: Non-legislative basic document commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development committee: AGRI
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Fisheries committee: PECH
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure
reference
2012/2285(INI)
title
Annual report 2011 on the protection of EU's financial interests - Fight against fraud
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048
stage_reached
Preparatory phase in Parliament
subtype
Annual report
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject