Activites

• 2015/04/29 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T8-0165/2015 summary

    The European Parliament decided by 439 votes to 248, with 8 abstentions, to postpone its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013. It postponed the closure of the accounts of the ECSEL accounts for the financial year 2013. Parliament also adopted by 659 votes to 19, with 9 abstentions, a resolution containing a number recommendations that form an integral part of the discharge decision and as well as the general recommendations that appear in the resolution on performance, financial management and control of EU agencies: Budgetary and financial management: Parliament was deeply concerned that the Court issued a qualified opinion, for a third consecutive year, on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the annual accounts, on the grounds of not being able to conclude whether or not the ex post audit strategy provided sufficient assurance with respect to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The qualified opinion put into question the willingness of the Joint Undertaking to be effective and efficient. Members acknowledged that the Joint Undertaking had submitted an action plan which aimed to remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion, and they looked forward to the successful implementation of the entire action plan. Parliament called on the Joint Undertaking to provide a first interim evaluation report on the implementation of the action plan. At the same time, Parliament was concerned that there was limited information available regarding the evaluation of the Member States' and AENEAS' contributions corresponding to the actual level of Union payments. It called on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority concerning the contributions of all members other than the Commission, including the application of the evaluation rules, together with an assessment by the Commission. Conflicts of interests: Parliament acknowledged that the Joint Undertaking has taken comprehensive measures to prevent conflicts of interest and has published them on its website; notes from the Court's report that further improvements should be considered such as setting up a database to include all information concerning conflicts of interest. It recalled that the discharge authority has previously requested the Court to draw up a special report on the capacity of the joint undertakings, together with their private partners, to ensure added value and efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes. Other observations: Parliament went on to make a series of observation on the legal framework of the Undertaking, the calls for proposals underway and the system of internal control at the Undertaking. It noted that between September 2012 and February 2013, the Commission carried out its Second Interim Evaluation in order to assess the Joint Undertaking and the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and research quality. It also noted that the report was issued in May 2013 and contained several recommendations for the Joint Undertaking.

• 2015/04/28 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2015/03/31 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • A8-0104/2015 summary

    The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Ryszard CZARNECKI (ECR, PL) on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013. The committee called on Parliament to postpone its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013. It made a number of recommendations that needed to be taken into account when the discharge is granted, in addition to the general recommendations that appear in the draft resolution on performance, financial management and control of EU agencies. ·        Budgetary and financial management: Members were deeply concerned that the Court issued a qualified opinion, for a third consecutive year, on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the annual accounts, on the grounds of not being able to conclude whether or not the ex post audit strategy provided sufficient assurance with respect to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The qualified opinion put into question the willingness of the Joint Undertaking to be effective and efficient. Members acknowledged that the Joint Undertaking had submitted an action plan which aimed to remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion, and they looked forward to the successful implementation of the entire action plan. They called on the Joint Undertaking to provide a first interim evaluation report on the implementation of the action plan. At the same time, the committee was concerned that there was limited information available regarding the evaluation of the Member States' and AENEAS' contributions corresponding to the actual level of Union payments. It called on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority concerning the contributions of all members other than the Commission, including the application of the evaluation rules, together with an assessment by the Commission. ·        Conflicts of interests: Members acknowledged that the Joint Undertaking had taken comprehensive measures to prevent conflicts of interest and had published them on its website. They called on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about the progress of the database concerning conflicts of interest. Other observations: Members went on to make a series of observation on the legal framework of the Undertaking, the calls for proposals underway and the system of internal control at the Undertaking. Lastly, they noted that between September 2012 and February 2013, the Commission carried out its Second Interim Evaluation in order to assess the Joint Undertaking and the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and research quality. They took note that the report was issued in May 2013 and contained several recommendations for the Joint Undertaking.

• 2015/03/23 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2014/10/20 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2014/07/30 Non-legislative basic document published
  • COM(2014)0510 summary

    PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2013, as part of the 2013 discharge procedure. Analysis of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking. CONTENT: this Commission document sets out the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2013 as prepared on the basis of the information presented by the institutions, organisations and bodies of the EU, in accordance with Article 129 (2) of the Financial Regulation applicable to the EU's General Budget, including the ENIAC Joint Undertaking. The document contains the figures on which the discharge procedure is based. Discharge procedure of the EU Joint Undertakings: the EU Budget finances a wide range of policies and programmes throughout the EU. In accordance with the priorities set by the European Parliament and the Council in the multi-annual financial framework (MFF), the European Commission carries out specific programmes, activities and projects in the field with the technical support of some specialised agencies. The consolidated annual accounts of the EU provide information on the activities of the institutions, agencies and other bodies of the EU from a budgetary and accrual accounting perspective. The consolidated reports on the implementation of the general budget of the EU include the budget implementation of all Institutions. Agencies and Joint Undertakings (JUs) do not have a separate budget inside the EU budget; and they are partially financed by a Commission budget subsidy. Each JU is subject to its own discharge procedure. ENIAC: in 2013, the tasks and budget of the Joint Undertaking were as follows: description of the tasks of the Joint Undertaking: the ENIAC Joint Undertaking, located in Brussels, was set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2008  for a period of 10 years. The aim of ENIAC is to define a commonly agreed research agenda in the field of nano-electronics. It pursues this by pooling resources from the public and private sectors to support R&D activities in the form of projects; accounts of the JU: the total commitment of the EU amounts to EUR 450 million. At 31 December 2013, the Commission held 95.41% of the ownership participation in ENIAC. The cumulative unrecognised share of losses is EUR 26 million. Please also consult the final accounts of ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/', 'title': 'Budget'}, GEORGIEVA Kristalina

Documents

• Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2014)0510
• Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0104/2015
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0165/2015

Amendments

Dossier

15

2014/2135(DEC) 2015/03/05 CONT 15 amendments... Amendment 1 # Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Marian-Jean MARINESCU Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. Grants the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; Amendment 10 # Marian-Jean MARINESCU Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Is concerned that there is poor information regarding the evaluation of the MS and AENEAS contributions corresponding to the actual level of Union's payments; in line with the information received, the contribution of the MS is under the level of 1.8 as requested by the Joint Undertaking’s statute; calls on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority concerning the contributions of all members other than the Commission , including the application of the evaluation rules, together with an assessment by the Commission; Amendment 11 # Marian-Jean MARINESCU Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Calls on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority on the social-economic benefits of the already completed projects; calls for that report to be submitted to the discharge authority together with an assessment by the Commission; Amendment 12 # Marian-Jean MARINESCU Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. Notes the Joint Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and the subsequent political agreement reached on the separate discharge for Joint Undertakings under Article 209 of the Financial Regulation Amendment 13 # Marian-Jean MARINESCU Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13 b. Reiterates its demand to the Court of Auditors to present a complete and appropriate financial assessment of rights and obligations of the Joint Undertaking for the period up to the date of ECSEL Joint Undertaking starting activity. Amendment 14 # Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14 a. calls on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority the progress of the database concerning conflicts of interest. Amendment 15 # Marian-Jean MARINESCU Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14 a. Recalls that the discharge authority has previously requested that the Court draws up a special report on the capacity of the joint undertakings, together with their private partners, to ensure added value and efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes Amendment 2 # Igor ŠOLTES Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. Grants the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; Amendment 3 # Richard ASHWORTH, Richard SULÍK, Beata GOSIEWSKA Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. Grants the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; Amendment 4 # Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. Grants the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013; Amendment 5 # Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Marian-Jean MARINESCU Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013; Amendment 6 # Igor ŠOLTES Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 10. Approves the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013; Amendment 7 # Richard ASHWORTH, Richard SULÍK, Beata GOSIEWSKA Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013; Amendment 8 # Igor ŠOLTES Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Is deeply concerned that the Court issued a qualified opinion, for a third consecutive year, on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the annual accounts, on the grounds of not being able to conclude whether or not the ex post audit strategy, which relies heavily on the National Funding Authorities (NFAs) auditing project cost claims, provides sufficient assurance with respect to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions; notes with concern that the Court issued a qualified opinion for a third consecutive yearconsiders that the qualified opinion put into question the willingess of the Joint Undertaking to be effective and efficient according to the principle of ''value for money''; urges therefore the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authorities on its strategy to change swiftly those current practices; Amendment 9 # Marian-Jean MARINESCU Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that an action plan, was submitted which aims to remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion; acknowledges receipt from the Joint Undertaking of the last update with regard to the Ex-post audit implementation in the Joint Undertaking; awaits the Court’s opinion on the new formula proposed for the calculation of an estimated residual error rate in the Joint Undertaking’s transactions; notes that the implementation of the action plan commenced in 2014; looks forward to the successful implementation of the entire action plan, as well as to the opinion of the Court on its outcome; points out that difficulties may arise on the boundary between the NFA's sovereign authority and the Joint Undertaking's authority; calls on the Joint Undertaking to provide a first interim evaluation report on the implementation of the action plan source: 549.355

History

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