Next event: Final act published in Official Journal 2017/09/29 more...
- Results of vote in Parliament 2017/04/27
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading 2017/04/27
- End of procedure in Parliament 2017/04/27
- Debate in Parliament 2017/04/26
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading 2017/03/31
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2017/03/23
- Amendments tabled in committee 2017/03/10
- Committee opinion 2017/03/06
- Committee opinion 2017/03/01
- Document attached to the procedure 2017/02/28
- Document attached to the procedure 2017/02/28
- Document attached to the procedure 2017/02/27
- Council Meeting 2017/02/21
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document 2017/02/17
- Committee opinion 2017/02/15
- Committee draft report 2017/02/08
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document 2017/02/07
- Committee opinion 2017/02/02
- Committee opinion 2017/01/31
- Committee opinion 2017/01/31
- Committee opinion 2017/01/27
- Committee opinion 2017/01/27
- Committee opinion 2017/01/27
- Committee opinion 2017/01/25
- Committee opinion 2017/01/25
Progress: Procedure completed
Lead committee dossier:
Subjects
Events
PURPOSE: to grant discharge to the European Commission for the financial year 2015.
NON-LEGISLATIVE ACT: Decision (EU, Euratom) 2017/1606 of the European Parliament on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III Commission.
CONTENT: with the present decision, the European Parliament grants discharge to the Commission for the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2015.
In its resolution attached to the Decision on discharge, the European Parliament recalled that in 2015 the budget of the Union had to support the achievement of the objectives of two different long-term political programmes:
the Europe 2020 Strategy on the one hand; and the 10 political priorities set out by President Juncker on the other hand, while also responding to a number of crisis situations: refugees, insecurity in Europe and its neighbourhood, financial instability in Greece and the economic impact of the Russian ban exports, as well as the prolonged impact of the financial crisis and its structural consequences of unemployment, poverty and inequality.
Parliament also noted that Union policies may have different short-, medium- and long-term objectives, whose realisation cannot necessarily be determined by a single multiannual financial framework. In its opinion, consideration needs to be given to a new balance between political agenda setting, policy implementation and financial framework needs.
Parliament welcomed Commissioner Oettinger's intention to bring the various shadow budgets, in the long run, back under the roof of the Union budget. It considered that this would hugely increase democratic accountability. The Commission is called on to prepare a communication on this issue before November 2017.
Parliament deeply regretted that for the 22nd year in a row payments are materially affected by error because of the fact that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective.
The European Parliament decided by 466 votes to 173, with 11 abstentions, to grant the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, and also grant discharge to the Directors of the Education, Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the European Research Council Executive Agency and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency in respect of the implementation of their respective Agencies’ budgets for the financial year 2015.
The vote on the decision on discharge covers the closure of the accounts (in accordance with Annex IV, Article 5 (1) (a) to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure).
Parliament stated that Europe is facing a crisis of confidence in its institutions and Parliament must be particularly rigorous when scrutinising the accounts of the Commission. It stated that it must have a strong engagement towards Union citizens’ concerns about where the Union budget is spent and how the Union protects their interests.
Budget, programming periods and political priorities : Parliament noted that the seven year duration of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is not synchronised with the five year mandates of the Parliament and the Commission, and that this also creates discrepancies between the budget for the financial year and its discharge . It considered that this is one of the causes of a major deficiency of the Union political governance since the Parliament and the Commission are bound by previous agreements on political objectives and finances which could create the impression that the European elections are irrelevant in this context.
It endorsed the Court’s position on a mid-term review of the MFF and called for:
a rolling budgeting programme with a five years planning horizon, clause(s) of revision by objectives and policies and rolling evaluation programme; determining the duration of programmes and schemes on policy needs rather basing it on the length of the financial planning period.
It called on the Commission to make greater use of the opportunities regarding the performance reserve within the existing legal framework , in order to create a genuine financial stimulus to effectively improve financial management.
The Commission is also requested to orient its priorities towards the successful achievement of the Europe 2020 Strategy by using the instruments of the European Semester.
Parliament regretted shadow budgets . These are numerous financial mechanisms supporting Union policies are not directly financed by the Union budget or recorded in the Union balance sheet: these include the European Financial Stability Facility, the European Stability Mechanism, the Single Resolution Mechanism and the European Investment Fund linked to the European Investment Bank (EIB).
It regretted that the increasing use of such financial instruments, and also the financial instruments in shared management (the financial engineering instruments), poses higher risks not just for the EU budget remaining a credible instrument and sufficient for both current and future objectives, but also for accountability and the coordination of Union policies and operations.
Budgetary and financial management : Parliament regretted that the backlogs in the use of 2007-2013 Structural Funds are significant and noted that by the end of 2015, payment of 10 % of the total EUR 446.2 billion allocated to all approved operational programmes (OPs) was still outstanding. It noted with concern that five Member States (Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Poland and Romania) and principle beneficiaries accounted for more than half of the unused commitment appropriations for Structural Funds that have not led to payments for the programming period 2007-2013. It feared that the forthcoming MFF might start with an unprecedented high level of ''RAL'' which might endanger the management of the EU budget in the first years.
Climate-related spending : Parliament expressed concern that in 2015 the share of the climate-related spending of the Union budget was only 17.3 % in 2015 and was only 17.6 % on average for the period 2014-2016, while the objective was to reach, at least, 20% over the financial period. It pointed out that the 20% climate-related spending was decided before the Paris agreement. It is convinced that further efforts should be made in order to make the Union budget even more climate-friendly. To this effect, the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework shall create an excellent opportunity to ensure that the 20% target of spending on climate-related actions is reached and to provide for a possible increase of this threshold in line with the EU's international commitments taken during the COP 21.
I. The Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance (DAS) :
Accounts and legality and regularity of revenue : Parliament welcomed the fact that the Court gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the accounts for 2015 and that the commitments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are legal and regular in all material respects. Legality and regularity of payments – adverse opinion : Parliament deeply regretted that that for the 22nd year in a row payments are materially affected by error because of the fact that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective. It stressed that even if the situation has improved in recent years the most likely error rate is still significantly above the materiality threshold of 2%. Getting results from the Union budget : Parliament called on the Commission to better evaluate in its next performance reports the outputs and the outcomes of all policies and to clearly and synthetically show the contribution of European policies to EU objectives and to evaluate their respective contribution to the Europe 2020 targets. It regretted that the Court found that the current setup does not enable the Commission to monitor and report separately the spending and performance of research and development (R&D) and innovation within Horizon 2020. It called on the Commission to present, in its future performance reports, the contribution of Horizon 2020 to Europe 2020 in a clear and exhaustive way.
II. Budgetary implementation by policy area – measures to be taken : Parliament discussed budgetary implementation and made the following observations.
Parliament’s main recommendations adopted in plenary by 482 votes to 154 and 14 abstentions are as follows:
Competitiveness for growth and jobs : Parliament called on the Member States to make an extra effort with the view to meeting the target of 3 % GDP being invested in research; this would boost excellence and innovation. It also called on it to examine the possibility of proposing a science covenant at local, regional and national level , building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors and called on the Member states and the Parliament to make an effort through the Union budget too.
Economic, social and territorial cohesion : Parliament stressed that errors in direct support area were nearly all due to an overstated number of eligible hectares and pointed out that in rural development, half of the errors were caused by the ineligibility of the beneficiary or project, 28% by procurement issues, and 8% by infringements to agri-environmental commitments. It stated that direct payments do not fully play their role as a safety net mechanism for stabilising farm income , particularly for smaller farms, given that the current unbalanced distribution of payments leads to 20% of all farms in the EU receiving 80% of all direct payments. It considered that larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms and that that capping the direct payments, as initially proposed by the European Commissions and endorsed by the European Parliament, could deliver sufficient financial resources to make the CAP fairer .
Global Europe : Parliament called on DG DEVCO and DG NEAR to enhance the quality of expenditure verifications contracted by beneficiaries.
Migration and security : Parliament expressed concern over checks carried out on funds for refugees, which are frequently allocated by the Member States in emergencies in ways that do not comply with the rules in force. It regarded it essential that the Commission introduce more rigorous checks, including with a view to ensuring that the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers are upheld.
Administration : Parliament emphasised that geographical balance , namely the relationship between staff nationality and the size of Member States, should still remain an important element of resources management particularly with respect to the Member States that have acceded to the Union since 2004. Lastly, it found it unacceptable that Member State representatives continue to grant discharge to the European schools, although the Commission, which pays 58% of the annual budget, and the Court advise against it.
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Joachim ZELLER (EPP, DE) recommending the Parliament to grant the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, and also grant discharge to the Directors of the Education, Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the European Research Council Executive Agency and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency in respect of the implementation of their respective Agencies’ budgets for the financial year 2015.
The committee recommended that Parliament close the accounts of the general budget of the Union for 2015.
Members stated that Europe is facing a crisis of confidence in its institutions and Parliament must be particularly rigorous when scrutinising the accounts of the Commission. They stated that Parliament must have a strong engagement towards Union citizens’ concerns about where the Union budget is spent and how the Union protects their interests.
Budget, programming periods and political priorities : Members noted that the seven year duration of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is not synchronised with the five year mandates of the Parliament and the Commission, and that this also creates discrepancies between the budget for the financial year and its discharge . They considered that this is one of the causes of a major deficiency of the Union political governance since the Parliament and the Commission are bound by previous agreements on political objectives and finances which could create the impression that the European elections are irrelevant in this context.
They endorsed the Court’s position on a mid-term review of the MFF and called for:
a rolling budgeting programme with a five years planning horizon, clause(s) of revision by objectives and policies and rolling evaluation programme; determining the duration of programmes and schemes on policy needs rather basing it on the length of the financial planning period.
They called on the Commission to make greater use of the opportunities regarding the performance reserve within the existing legal framework , in order to create a genuine financial stimulus to effectively improve financial management.
The Commission is also requested to orient its priorities towards the successful achievement of the Europe 2020 Strategy by using the instruments of the European Semester.
Members regretted shadow budgets . These are numerous financial mechanisms supporting Union policies are not directly financed by the Union budget or recorded in the Union balance sheet: these include the European Financial Stability Facility, the European Stability Mechanism, the Single Resolution Mechanism and the European Investment Fund linked to the European Investment Bank (EIB).
They regretted that the increasing use of such financial instruments, and also the financial instruments in shared management (the financial engineering instruments), poses higher risks not just for the EU budget remaining a credible instrument and sufficient for both current and future objectives, but also for accountability and the coordination of Union policies and operations.
Budgetary and financial management : Members regretted that the backlogs in the use of 2007-2013 Structural Funds are significant and noted that by the end of 2015, payment of 10 % of the total EUR 446.2 billion allocated to all approved operational programmes (OPs) was still outstanding. They noted with concern that five Member States (Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Poland and Romania) and principle beneficiaries accounted for more than half of the unused commitment appropriations for Structural Funds that have not led to payments for the programming period 2007-2013. They feared that the forthcoming MFF might start with an unprecedented high level of ''RAL'' which might endanger the management of the EU budget in the first years.
I. The Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance (DAS) :
Accounts and legality and regularity of revenue : Members welcomed the fact that the Court gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the accounts for 2015 and that the commitments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are legal and regular in all material respects. Legality and regularity of payments – adverse opinion : Members deeply regretted that that for the 22nd year in a row payments are materially affected by error because of the fact that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective. They stressed that even if the situation has improved in recent years the most likely error rate is still significantly above the materiality threshold of 2%. Getting results from the Union budget : Members called on the Commission to better evaluate in its next performance reports the outputs and the outcomes of all policies and to clearly and synthetically show the contribution of European policies to EU objectives and to evaluate their respective contribution to the Europe 2020 targets. They regretted that the Court found that the current setup does not enable the Commission to monitor and report separately the spending and performance of research and development (R&D) and innovation within Horizon 2020. They called on the Commission to present, in its future performance reports, the contribution of Horizon 2020 to Europe 2020 in a clear and exhaustive way.
II. Budgetary implementation by policy area – measures to be taken : Members discussed budgetary implementation and made the following observations:
Competitiveness for growth and jobs : Members called on the Member States to make an extra effort with the view to meeting the target of 3 % GDP being invested in research; this would boost excellence and innovation. They also called on it to examine the possibility of proposing a science covenant at local, regional and national level , building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors and called on the Member states and the Parliament to make an effort through the Union budget too. Economic, social and territorial cohesion : Members stressed that errors in direct support area were nearly all due to an overstated number of eligible hectares and pointed out that in rural development, half of the errors were caused by the ineligibility of the beneficiary or project, 28% by procurement issues, and 8% by infringements to agri-environmental commitments. They stated that direct payments do not fully play their role as a safety net mechanism for stabilising farm income, particularly for smaller farms, given that the current unbalanced distribution of payments leads to 20% of all farms in the EU receiving 80% of all direct payments. They considered that larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms and that that capping the direct payments, as initially proposed by the European Commissions and endorsed by the European Parliament, could deliver sufficient financial resources to make the CAP fairer . Global Europe : Members called on DG DEVCO and DG NEAR to enhance the quality of expenditure verifications contracted by beneficiaries. Migration and security : Members expressed concern over checks carried out on funds for refugees, which are frequently allocated by the Member States in emergencies in ways that do not comply with the rules in force. They regarded it essential that the Commission introduce more rigorous checks, including with a view to ensuring that the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers are upheld. Administration : Members emphasised that geographical balance , namely the relationship between staff nationality and the size of Member States, should still remain an important element of resources management particularly with respect to the Member States that have acceded to the Union since 2004.
The present Communication provides a thorough analysis of the root causes of errors in the context of the implementation of the EU budget and the actions taken, in line with Article 32(5) of the Financial Regulation. It responds to the requests of the European Parliament and the Council to present a report on persistently high levels of error and their root causes.
The Communication is based on information available to the Commission mostly covering payments for the 2007 - 2013 programming period.
Shared management- shared responsibility : whereas the Commission is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the EU budget, around 80% of expenditure is actually executed directly by Member States under shared management. This is so notably for the Common Agricultural Policy and Structural and Investment Funds. The remaining 20% of the EU budget is implemented under direct or indirect management, via third parties, notably European or international financial institutions.
After careful examination of the reliability of the work carried out by external auditors, the Commission applies the “ Single Audit ” concept whereby each level of control builds on the preceding one. It establishes a series of reports on the implementation of the budget and provides a comprehensive overview based on the information available to it.
Thanks to this robust system of controls at various levels, financial management has significantly improved in the course of the last decade . The constant scrutiny by the European Parliament, the Council and the Court resulted in an increased professionalisation of the entire chain of control of the EU funds from the Commission to Member States' authorities, Third Countries and International Organisations.
Declining errors : in line with improvements in the financial management, the results of both the Commission and the Court indicate that the levels of error are declining. These annual estimates went from double digit rates for some policy areas (particularly 'Cohesion') before 2009 to considerably lower levels at present - below 5% in most policy areas and close to or even below 2% in some domains. Moreover, estimated error rates vary greatly depending on the policy area and the aid scheme.
Despite the progress made, the Court has not issued a positive Statement of Assurance until now as the annual estimated error rate has not yet fallen below the materiality threshold of 2%.
These improvements, illustrated by the reduction of the error rate, have required a very significant investment in terms of public sector controls. This explains the growing requests from public authorities and final beneficiaries to improve the proportionality and cost-efficiency of the legal and administrative framework. Not more, but better controls should be carried out.
Root causes of errors : in order to target action in this area, thorough analyses are carried out of the actual root causes of errors.
The analysis noted that over the years the most common error types were:
ineligible expenditure items; ineligible beneficiaries/projects/implementation periods; breach of public procurement and State aid rules; insufficient reliable documentation to back expenditure declarations; incorrect declaration of eligible areas in the field of agriculture.
The Commission continuously takes actions, both preventive (such as interruptions and suspensions of payments) and corrective (financial corrections and recoveries), to address the root causes and the impact of persistently high levels of error.
The DGs implement targeted measures in order to strengthen the management and control systems at national, European and international levels. In addition, the Commission coordinates a network of Member State experts on Internal Control allowing for the identification and sharing of good practice to improve general public sector governance systems.
In the field of fraud prevention and detection, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Commission services responsible for shared management cooperate with Member States through workshops, seminars, training and elaboration of practical guidance documents.
The present Communication examines the different MFF Headings are examined in the light of the existence of persistently high levels of errors, their root causes and the remedial actions taken by the Commission services responsible.
This document comprises the Member States' Replies to the European Court of Auditors' 2015 Annual Report.
It concentrates on three main themes:
regularity of transactions in the major EU spending areas in shared management with a particular focus on root causes of errors; performance of the EU budget and performance at project level in shared management; follow-up of the Court's recommendations to Member States.
This report provides a summary of the Member States' replies. It is accompanied by a staff working document , which presents the Member States' replies in more detail.
1. Root causes of errors and actions addressing errors : the report established list of 192 examples of main root causes of legality and regularity errors in the EU expenditure. The examples were based on findings made by the Court and the Commission as well as reservations formulated in the annual activity reports of the relevant Directorates-General of the Commission over a two-year period.
Main root causes of errors were found in the CAP and Cohesion policy.
The analysis shows that the causes most commonly identified by the Member States are:
the complexity of implementing rules : Member States have gained practical experience with opportunities for simplification. However, further simplification is needed , considering in particular reduction of administrative burden and efficiency of controls at reasonable cost. For CAP and cohesion policy, the sufficient knowledge in applying procurement and State aid rules remains a problem, and for the CAP only – the complex eligibility rules; the prevention and correction of errors : for cohesion policy in particular, Member States called for further improvement of the systems and promoting good practices; the prevention of errors : Member States stated that the preventive and corrective capacity of errors should be strengthened and that IT functionalities should enhance the efficiency of controls. Risk analysis techniques should contribute to better target controls and resources.
2. Performance of the EU budget : Member States' mind-sets are changing towards focus on results as they make efforts to introduce performance frameworks . This ensures that EU programmes and projects have an impact in many different ways and on multiple levels. However, ensuring consistency in the performance-related terminology remains a challenge. Some Member States called for a clear set of indicators at project level.
Overall Member States put the monitoring of result-oriented systems in a larger perspective by referring to ex ante evaluations for the purposes of preparing partnership agreements and operational programmes and/or to other evaluations, studies and impact assessments that are foreseen for the period 2014-2020.
3. Follow-up of the Court’s recommendation to Member States : Member States almost unanimously replied that they have established systems for the follow-up of Court’s recommendations formulated in its annual and special reports. Some Member States explained that the Court’s and the Commission’s recommendations are monitored by the competent authorities for the management of the EU funds, including certification bodies and audit bodies. However, follow-up processes vary between Member States.
Conclusion : the Commission is committed to continue working closely with the Member States towards lower levels of error , improved financial management and value added of the EU budget.
Member States demonstrated in their replies that they are aware of the main root causes of the errors and are committed to continue working to ensure effectively functioning management and control systems. They addressed root causes of errors by using various simplification opportunities and strengthening their preventive and corrective capacity, notably on the basis of lessons learned, enhanced IT technologies, data mining tools, and risk management techniques. Member States also implement action plans, if needed, on which they regularly report to the Commission.
In general, the replies confirmed that the Member States:
apply a multiannual control and audit cycle, and that corrective measures can be implemented until the closure of the programming period; considered that it is not possible to avoid minor errors at reasonable costs; are committed to ensuring a link between EU political priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and national priorities; strengthen their framework performance and that they focus more on results; are committed to follow-up the Court’s recommendations but wide variations in the follow-up systems and processes exist.
In accordance with Article 319(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council approved a recommendation concerning discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015.
Detailed analysis of expenditure :
revenue amounted to EUR 146 623 630 294.45; expenditure disbursed from appropriations amounted to -EUR 143 484 740 003.31 ; cancelled payment appropriations (including earmarked revenue) carried over from year n-1 amounted to EUR 675 429 004.31; appropriations for payments carried over to year n+1 amounted to -EUR 1 294 470 333.92; EFTA payment appropriations carried over from year n-1 amounted to -EUR 4 428 001.55; the balance of exchange-rate differences amounted to EUR 182 315 866.64; the positive budget balance amounted to EUR 1 346 878 818.00; cancelled payment appropriations for the financial year amounted to EUR 28 585 352.01; EUR 1 758 506 605.41 (98.4 %) of the EUR 1 787 091 957.42 in appropriations for payments carried over to year n have been used.
Based on the observations contained in the Court of Auditors reports, the Council recommended the European Parliament to give a discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015.
However, the Council issued a series of comments in regard to budgetary implementation which will need to be fully taken into account when granting the discharge.
DAS : the Council welcomed the Court's annual report and Statement of Assurance (DAS) on the implementation of the EU budget for 2015, as well as the favourable opinion given by the Court on the reliability of the annual accounts. It regretted, however, that the overall estimated level of error reported by the Court for 2015 payments stood at 3.8 % , even though relatively lower than in 2014 (4.4 %) and that all spending areas, bar "Administration", continued to be affected by a material level of error.
In general, the Council appreciated the efforts and actions taken by the Commission and Member States to implement the Court's recommendations and it encouraged the Commission to continue to ensuring strict supervision of expenditure in order to reduce the estimated level of error across the Union's spending.
Financial corrections : the Council considered that financial corrections and recoveries are important instruments for the protection of the EU budget. It called on the Commission to continue, where appropriate, the implementation of all available corrective measures . It is aware of the multiannual nature of financial corrections and assesses its overall impact on the protection of the EU budget in that context. Therefore, it encouraged the Court and the Commission to work together in order to converge their approaches in the evaluation of the impact of financial correction on the estimated amount at risk at closure and to provide comparable data.
Public procurement : the Council noted with satisfaction the Court's finding that non-compliance with public procurement rules decreased relative to preceding years reflecting the efforts made by the Commission and Member States to address weaknesses in this area.
"Single Audit" : the Council encouraged the Court, the Commission and Member States to improve the timely exchange of information on sufficiently and continuously reliable audit results with a view to an efficient application of the principle of "Single Audit". It stressed the need to facilitate the exchange and disclosure of the relevant and available information and to build on reliable controls already undertaken instead of adding additional layers of control .
RAL and payment appropriations : the Council noted the Court's observation that so far, 2015 was the year with the highest level of commitments due to the late adoption of operational programmes and the transfer of commitments from 2014. It also noted the increase in the level of outstanding commitments RAL (" Reste à Liquider "). It called on the Commission to continue monitoring the evolution of the amounts of outstanding commitments, by heading and by programme on a regular basis, and to settle or decommit them in a timely manner and in line with the relevant rules.
The Council recalled its request to the Commission to provide the budgetary authority with a long term cash flow forecast, in order to avoid a possible build-up of outstanding unpaid claims and to improve the predictability of national contributions. It called on the Commission to prepare and publish on an annual basis a long term and transparent forecast covering budgetary ceilings, estimated payments obligations and needs until the end of the current MFF.
It emphasised the need to provide, on a regular basis, clear, exhaustive, transparent and timely information about the needs for payment appropriations and the availability of funds in the annual budget.
Getting results from the EU budget : the Council called on the Commission to continue its efforts in providing consistent and coherent measurements of performance at all levels of management of the programmes in order to enable their meaningful assessment against the objectives set. It stressed the need, in this regard, to assess performance in order to make the results of EU interventions more evident.
Revenue : the Council noted with satisfaction the Court's conclusion that the revenue part of the budget was not affected by material error, that the underlying transactions tested were found to be free from error, and that the systems for traditional own resources were assessed as being overall effective. However, in connection with the own resources, the Council noted with concern the shortcomings identified by the Court in the management of their accounting.
The Council analysed each budget area and made the following comments:
competitiveness for growth and jobs : the Council appreciated that the errors that could have been prevented or detected and corrected by using all available information dropped from 2.8 % in 2014 to 0.6 % in 2015. However, it showed concern about the relative importance of certain quantified errors, which have a significant impact on the overall estimated level of error and called on the Commission to analyse the causes and take action to avoid such errors in the future; economic, social and territorial cohesion : the Council noted that errors made by managing authorities and intermediate bodies in Member States contributed to another 0.6 percentage points to the estimated level of error in this chapter. The Council took note of the Court's observations on the increased probability of greater delays in the implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes compared to the 2007-2013 programmes. It regretted the Court's observation that several attempts aimed at simplification in recent years have had only a limited impact on the regularity of transactions while, at the same time, increased levels of control have caused significant additional administrative burden on national administrations and beneficiaries. It invited the Commission and Member States to intensify their efforts in addressing those weaknesses by taking into account all available information and supporting documentation; natural resources : the Council encouraged Member States to take full advantage of the new 2014-2020 legal framework in order to improve the management of EU spending and thereby to lower the risk of error and the Commission to provide appropriate and consistent training and guidance to assist in the implementation of new programmes. It underlined the high level of error detected by the Court in the administrative processing of aid applications by national authorities, contributing for 0.6 percentage points to the estimated level of error. It called upon the Commission to continue to systematically request and closely monitor action plans by Member States aiming at remedying the situation and to continue to apply reductions and suspension of payments and financial corrections when necessary , in line with the conformity clearance procedures. It stated that the errors which contribute most to the estimated level of error related to the non-compliance with either the eligibility requirements, the public procurement rules or the agri-environmental commitments ; global Europe and security and citizenship : the Council took note that the estimated level of error reported by the Court for 2015 payments in the "Global Europe" policy area stood at 2.8 %, representing an increase of 0.1 percentage points compared to 2014. It welcomed the fact that, for the first time, the Court has included in its Annual Report an analysis of the "Security and Citizenship" policies. It encouraged the Court to consider increasing its audit scope in this area in order to assess, in particular, the effectiveness of the Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund and of the Internal Security Fund and to provide a deeper analysis of this policy area; administration : lastly, the Council welcomed the fact that, as in previous years, the administrative and related expenditure of the EU institutions remained free from material error with an estimated level of error of 0.6 %, which is well below the materiality threshold.
In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes, and in particular Article 14(3) thereof, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1653/2004 on a standard financial regulation for the executive agencies, the Council is required to draw up recommendations to the European Parliament on a discharge to be given to the executive agencies.
At a series of meetings on 16 and 31 January and 2 February 2017, the Budget Committee examined the specific reports drawn up by the European Court of Auditors on the annual accounts of the executive agencies. Having examined the revenue and expenditure accounts for the financial year 2015 and the balance sheets of all the executive agencies as well as the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the agencies together with their respective replies, the Council considered it appropriate to recommend to the European Parliament to give discharge to the Directors of each agency as regards the implementation of their respective budgets for 2015.
However, it considered that the observations contained in the Court of Auditors' report called for a number of comments from the Council which do not call into question the granting of discharge.
The Council called on all the executive agencies to improve their financial programming and monitoring of the budget implementation in order to reduce the level of committed appropriations carried over to the following year to the strict minimum necessary and to limit carry-overs in duly justified cases, in line with the budgetary principle of annuality.
FOLLOW-UP TO 2014 COMMISSION DISCHARGE – REPLIES TO REQUESTS FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
This Commission staff working paper completes the report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the follow-up to the 2014 discharge.
An overview of these replies can be found in COM(2016)06745 ( please refer to the summary of the document in question ).
The working paper presents in detail the answers to 350 specific requests made by the European Parliament in its Resolution forming an integral part of its Decisions on the 2014 Discharge.
Most of these requests were classified according to the following chapters:
Commission commitments with regard to discharge priorities; the Court's statement of assurance; general budgetary and financial management; budgetary performance ; evaluation and analysis of the main results of 2014 Union budget : (i) competitiveness for growth and jobs; (ii) economic, social and territorial cohesion; (iii) natural resources; (iv) global Europe; (v) administration (including the agencies).
For each of these chapters, the Commission responds point by point to the requests of the European Parliament and proposes a framework of appropriate measures, if necessary.
FOLLOW-UP TO 2014 DISCHARGE – REPLIES TO REQUESTS FROM THE COUNCIL
This Commission staff working paper completes the Report from the Commission to the Council on the follow-up to the 2014 Discharge.
An overview of these replies can be found in COM(2016)0674 ( please refer to the summary of the document in question ).
The working paper presents in detail the answers to 57 specific requests made by the Council in the comments accompanying its Recommendation on the 2014 Discharge.
Most of these requests were classified according to the following chapters:
the statement of assurance and supporting information; budgetary and financial management issues; budget performance; revenue; heading on competitiveness for growth and jobs; heading on economic, social and territorial cohesion; heading on natural resources.
The document also highlighted the implementing actions in the framework of the EDFs.
For each of these chapters, the Commission responds point by point to the requests of the Council and proposes a framework of appropriate measures, if necessary.
PURPOSE: presentation of a report on the follow-up to the requests made by the European Parliament in its discharge resolutions and the Council in its recommendation for the year 2014.
CONTENT: the discharge for the financial year 2014 was marked by the alignment of the most involved European Institutions – European Parliament, Council, European Court of Auditors, Commission - on the importance of focusing on the performance of the EU budget .
In the discharge proceedings, a new balance was thus struck between issues relating to the results delivered by the EU budget and issues concerning the formal compliance with rules.
In 2015, progress was made on the 'Budget Focused on Results' (BFOR) initiative in relation to inter alia developing a conceptual framework, reinforcing programme statements in the annual budget, and upgrading the Commission's Strategic Planning and Programming cycle.
The work continues in 2016 with e.g. meetings of the expert group on performance based budgeting, a streamlining of reporting on both performance and compliance issues in the new Annual Management and Performance Report, and the review of the Financial Regulation.
Also the European Court of Auditors stressed the need for a revised balance between performance and compliance issues , calling for a 'wholly new approach to investment and spending' when it published its Annual report concerning the 2014 financial year. It invited EU decision-makers, EU legislators and financial managers to ensure that EU funds are spent in line with strategic priorities and achieve the intended results.
These issues were discussed extensively during the discharge proceedings in the Parliament as well as in the Council.
Parliament’s report on discharge of the Commission emphasised the need to ensure "continuity and innovation" in the discharge. In addition to increasing the focus on performance issues, it reacted to the Commission's follow-up of requests made by the EP in past discharge proceedings. Evidence was given of the Commission's formal commitments to implement fully and timely a series of actions and measures related to the issues identified.
The present report takes into account these commitments whilst updating, where relevant, the situation by providing an overview of further actions taken up to now . It is accompanied by two Commission staff working documents containing replies to 350 Parliament and 57 Council specific discharge requests.
The Commission agrees to start new actions on 100 requests (88 from the Parliament and 12 from the Council). It considers that for requests 272 (227 from the Parliament and 45 from the Council), the required action has already been taken or is on-going, though in some cases the results of the actions will need to be assessed. Lastly, for reasons related to the existing legal and budgetary framework or its institutional role or prerogatives, the Commission cannot accept 35 requests from the Parliament.
Other issues may be summarised as follows:
Budgetary performance : the Commission is firmly committed to: a) seeking a financial programming with adequate budgetary means for longer term policy priorities; and b) implement the legislative framework put in place by the Parliament and the Council in order to improve reporting on the contribution of the ESI Funds to the achievement of the Union's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Furthermore, Parliament called on the Commission to improve its reporting on performance issues. The Commission has presented the new Annual Management and Performance Report for the 2015 EU Budget which provides a comprehensive overview of how the EU budget supports the Union's political priorities and the role the Commission plays in fostering a culture of performance as well as in ensuring and promoting the highest standards of budgetary management. The report is an important contribution by the Commission to the annual budgetary discharge process.
"Focus, speed and results" are the guiding principles of a number of initiatives, which fall into four different areas as illustrated in the new Annual Management and Performance Report. This approach shows the Commission's commitment to streamline reporting on the performance of the budget.
The 'Budget Focused on Results' (BFOR) initiative strives for continuous progress in this area. Specific improvements were already introduced during 2015 in the Commission’s strategic planning and programming cycle as well as in the budgetary procedure. These changes enhance performance planning, monitoring and reporting for all programmes.
Addressing the level of error : in response to the request by both the Parliament and the Council to apply strictly Article 32(5) of the Financial Regulation, the Commission will carry out analyses of “areas of persistently high levels of errors” and report on the root causes and on measures taken to address them, while ensuring cost-effectiveness of controls. In this respect, the Commission is committed to continue close coordination with the Member States and other entities entrusted with the implementation of the EU budget , to identify areas where concerted action is necessary or is considered likely to be beneficial. Preventive action such as providing guidance to Member States or suspending/interrupting funds will be taken when appropriate.
As requested by the Parliament and the Council, the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, will continue to use all information available to prevent, detect and correct possible errors.
Parliament has requested the Commission to assess for each policy domain and for the Union budget as a whole, the level of error remaining after corrective measures, while taking into account the multi-annual nature of programmes. The Commission followed up on this request by presenting its best estimate of the so-called "amount at risk at closure" for each policy area and for the budget as a whole. It carries out consistency checks on Member States' data such as control statistics for CAP spending, and the annual financial corrections statements for all Member States and operational programmes in the areas of Cohesion policy.
Pressure on the budget : Parliament requested the assessment of all flexibility provisions of the MFF and measures to overcome insufficient absorption capacity. In this regard, the Commission has presented a payment forecast assessing the sustainability of the current ceilings and including the estimate of de-commitments and the evolution of RAL until the end of the current MFF.
As for the CAP, the EAFRD provides Member States with pre-financing for implementation of their 2014-2020 programmes. For the programming period 2014-2020, the Commission increased by one year the time period during which Member States have to implement budgetary commitments. Currently, the N+3 rule applies, which means that Member States have 4 years to implement EAFRD funds. This new rule will enhance utilisation of funds by Member States.
Concerning Cohesion Policy, the Commission took the initiative to tackle absorption problems in a flexible way, creating the Task Force for Better Implementation. This Task Force has agreed action plans, ensuring an exchange of experience and good practices. It has supported some Member States into looking at the situation of their programmes and into actively searching for solutions to some of the challenges faced, while continuing to ensure strict compliance with the applicable rules.
The Commission will be able to assess the full impact of the Task Force on Member States' use of the 2007-2013 budgetary allocations after the closure of all relevant programmes. For the 2014-2020 period, all national authorities are strongly encouraged to jump start programme implementation.
Lastly, the report focused on more specific issues such as:
the management of external assistance with regard to the refugee crisis; internal management within OLAF and the concern of the protection of whistleblowers; the tobacco agreement and the specific follow-up by the Commission on the fight against illegal tobacco trade (such as “cheap whites”).
PURPOSE: presentation of a report on the internal audits carried out in 2015 in the framework of the discharge procedure.
CONTENT: this report is to inform the European Parliament and Council of the work carried out by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS), as required by Article 99(5) of the Financial Regulation. It is based on the report drawn up by the Commission’s Internal Auditor under Article 99(3) of that Regulation, regarding IAS audit- and consulting reports completed in 2015 on Commission Directorates-General, Services and Executive Agencies.
In line with its legal base it contains a summary of the number and type of internal audits carried out, the recommendations and the action taken on those recommendations. The audit reports finalised in the period 1 February 2015 - 31 January 2016 are included in this report. Recommendations implemented after the cut-off date of 31 January 2016 are not considered.
Scope of the report : the mission of the Internal Audit Service is to provide to the Commission independent, objective assurance and consulting services designed to add value and improve the operations of the Commission. Its tasks include assessing and making appropriate recommendations for improving the governance process in its accomplishment of the following objectives:
promoting appropriate ethics and values within the organisation; ensuring effective organisational performance management and accountability; effectively communicating risk and control information to appropriate areas of the organisation.
The IAS performs its work in accordance with the Financial Regulation and the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and the Code of Ethics of the Institute of Internal Auditors.
The IAS does not audit Member States’ systems of control over the Commission’s funds. Such audits, which reach down to the level of individual beneficiaries, are carried out by Member States’ internal auditors, national Audit Authorities, other individual Commission DGs and the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
Implementation of the 2015 audit plan : by the cut-off date of 31 January 2016, the implementation of the 2015 audit plan reached its target of 100% of planned engagements for audits in the Commission, Services and Executive Agencies.
139 engagements (including audits, follow-ups, limited reviews, risk assessments and one management letter) were finalised.
The increase in number of engagements finalised by the IAS in 2015 compared to previous years is mainly due to the centralisation of the internal audit function . In 2015, the IAS received 60 new posts which it has gradually been filling. As a result, the audit plan included new engagements in line with the increased availability of capacity. The 2016 final audit plan contains 101 audit engagements (excl. follow-up engagements), of which 67 are planned to be finalised in 2016.
Methodology : in response to the Commission's move towards an enhanced performance-based culture and greater focus on value for money, the IAS continued to carry out performance audits and audits which include important performance elements (comprehensive audits) in 2015 as part of its 2013-2015 strategic audit plan.
These audits addressed a number of aspects related to performance:
DGs and Services are faced with a growing pressure on financial and human resources while at the same time they need to demonstrate that they are delivering on their objectives and achieving value for money. The IAS focused on (1) how DGs and Services manage, monitor and report on the specific objectives which are under their control and can be achieved through their outputs and actions, (2) the use of their internal resources and (3) how they evaluate the benefits of their internal processes and controls; the 2014-2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework places more emphasis on the achievement of results and new provisions in the legal bases introduced mechanisms which aim at strengthening the performance frameworks of the 2014-2020 spending programmes.
In line with its methodology and best practice, the IAS approached performance in an indirect way , i.e. an assessment of whether and how management has set up systems intended to measure the performance (efficiency and effectiveness) of its activities. Through this approach, the IAS aims at ensuring that, in the first instance, DGs and Services have established performance frameworks including performance measurement tools, (i.e. key indicators) and monitoring systems which means that objectives and SMART benchmarks have first to be established at Commission level, in order to dissociate, to the extent possible, the Commission's specific objectives and performance from those of the spending programmes, the achievement of which also depends on other major key players , particularly when EU programmes are implemented under shared and indirect management (Member States, Regions, etc.).
Overall opinion : the IAS considered that the implementation of action plans drawn up in response to its audits this year and in the past contributes to the steady improvement of the Commission’s internal control framework :
on internal controls, the IAS conclusion on the state of internal control is limited to the management and control systems which were subject to an audit and does not cover those which had not been audited by the IAS or the IAC in the past three years; as regards the budgetary management of the Commission, the overall opinion is qualified with regard to the reservations made in the Authorising Officers' by Delegation Declarations of Assurance. In arriving at this opinion, the IAS considered the combined impact of amounts estimated to be at risk as disclosed in the Annual Activity Reports of the DG/Service concerned in the light of the corrective capacity as evidenced by financial corrections and recoveries of the past. Given the magnitude of financial corrections and recoveries of the past and assuming that corrections on 2015 payments will be made at a comparable level, the EU Budget is adequately protected as a whole (not necessarily individual policy areas) and over time (sometimes several years later).
Without further qualifying the opinion, the internal auditor added three ‘emphases of matter’ which relate to:
control strategies in the research area for the 2014-2020 programmes, supervision strategies regarding third parties implementing policies and programmes, nuclear decommissioning and waste management programme in JRC.
PURPOSE: presentation of the Annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2015.
CONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its 39 th annual report on the implementation of the general budget of the Union for the year 2015.
This report follows a two-part structure:
the first part contains the statement of assurance and a summary of the results of the audit on the reliability of accounts and on the regularity of transactions; the second part presents the findings on budgetary and financial management.
The statement of assurance (DAS) concerning the reliability of the EU’s annual accounts and the legality and regularity of transactions is the central element of this report.
DAS : the Court concluded that the consolidated accounts of the European Union for the year ended 31 December 2015 present fairly , in all material respects, the financial position of the Union as at 31 December 2015, the results of its operations, its cash flows, and the changes in net assets for the year then ended, in accordance with the Financial Regulation and with accounting rules based on internationally accepted accounting standards for the public sector.
Revenue : revenue underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 is legal and regular in all material respects.
Expenditure : expenditure recorded in 2015 is materially affected by error . The estimated level of error for payments underlying the accounts is 3.8 % Progress can be seen in this regard compared to previous years but remain persistently above the materiality threshold of 2 %.
Management mode has a limited impact on level of error. The same estimated level of error under shared management with the Member States (4.0 %) is found and for expenditure managed directly by the Commission (3.9 %).
The highest levels of error were found in spending under:
economic, social and territorial cohesion (5.2 %); competitiveness for growth and jobs (4.4 %).
Key findings and messages to the Court’s DAS : other comment made by the Court may be summarised as follows:
- Reimbursement spending was most affected by error : the correct calculation of payments to recipients of funding often depends on information provided by the recipients themselves. This is especially significant in the area of reimbursement activities. EU spending by programme expenditure type includes the following errors: (i) for reimbursement expenditure, the estimated level of error is 5.2 % (2014: 5.5 %); (ii) typical errors in this area include ineligible costs contained in the cost claims, ineligible projects, activities and beneficiaries, and serious infringement of public procurement rules; (iii) for entitlement programmes, the estimated level of error is 1.9 % (2014: 2.7 %), with typical errors including small over-declarations by farmers of agricultural areas.
- Corrective measures : corrective action by authorities in the Member States and by the Commission had a positive impact on the estimated level of error. Without this action, our overall estimated level of error would have been 4.3 %. Although steps have been taken by the Commission to improve its assessment of risk and the impact of corrective actions, there is still scope for improvement. If the Commission, authorities in the Member States or independent auditors had made use of all information available to them, they could have prevented, or detected and corrected a significant proportion of the errors before the related payments were made.
- Payments : amounts to be paid in the current and future years remain at a very high level. However, the Commission has not produced a cash flow forecast covering the next 7 to 10 years. Such a forecast would enable stakeholders to anticipate future payment requirements and budgetary priorities.
- Financial instruments : the increasing use of financial instruments, not directly funded by the EU budget nor audited by us, poses higher risks for accountability and the coordination of EU policies and operations.
- Performance based budget : the Court noted that there has been some progress in the indicators used by the Commission to measure performance, but shortcomings remain. Management objectives also need to be better developed at the level of the Commission’s directorates-general.
- Horizon 2020 : although there have been improvements when compared to the Seventh Framework Programme, the Commission is still limited in its ability to monitor and report on the performance of the programme. The links between the Commission’s 10 new political priorities and Europe 2020/Horizon 2020’s strategic framework need further clarification.
- Follow-up of Commission recommendations : despite an overall reasonable level of awareness of our recommendations to Member States, there is a wide variation in the level of formal follow-up and, as a result, only moderate evidence of changes in national policy and practice.
Analysis of budgetary implementation by groups of expenditure and recommendations from the Court : expenditure that did not fulfil the necessary conditions to be charged to EU-funded projects continues to make the greatest contribution to the overall estimated level of error (ineligible costs included in cost claims: 42 % of the overall estimated level of error). Two other major contributors to the estimated level of error were incorrect declarations of area by farmers (19 %) and ineligible projects/activities or beneficiaries (16 %). Serious errors in public procurement (11 %) contributed considerably less when compared with 2014.
Competitiveness for growth and jobs (€14.5 billion): the estimated level of error in spending on ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ remains relatively higher than other spending areas. Much of the expenditure is made on a cost reimbursement basis and most of the errors were related to the reimbursement of ineligible personnel or indirect costs declared by beneficiaries. Economic, social and territorial cohesion (€53.9 billion): the expenditure for ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion policy’ is the second largest in the EU budget and has the highest estimated level of error. This makes it the biggest contributor to the overall estimated level of error (half of the total). Almost all of the expenditure takes the form of cost reimbursement. Ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries’ cost declarations and the selection of ineligible projects, activities or beneficiaries contribute to three-quarters of the estimated level of error for 2015 for this spending area. Errors due to the infringement of public procurement rules represent one-seventh. Natural resources (€58.6 billion): ‘Natural resources’ has the largest share of the EU budget and also contributes significantly to the overall estimated level of error due to its high estimated level of error for 2015 (nearly a third of the total). Overstated claims of agricultural areas were the highest contributor to the estimated level of error in this spending area (more than half). Errors related to ineligible beneficiaries, activities or expenditure contributed to one-fifth. The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) accounts for more than three-quarters of expenditure under ‘Natural resources’ but is significantly less affected by error (2.2 %) than rural development (5.3 %). The latter is characterised by higher levels of error in investment spending, where agricultural businesses are subsidised on the basis of reimbursement of eligible spending. Global Europe (€6.9 billion): for ‘Global Europe’, the Commission’s acceptance of payments for works, services or supplies that had not been delivered, together with ineligible costs reimbursed by the Commission account for two-thirds of the total estimated level of error. The most frequent type of error identified by the Court’s audit work was ineligible expenditure claimed by final beneficiaries. This involves spending on activities not covered by contracts or incurred outside the eligibility period. Other errors found related to the acceptance and clearance of payment by the Commission for services, works or supplies that had not yet been incurred by the beneficiary, or for which the beneficiary could not provide us with supporting documentation to justify the expenditure. Security and citizenship (€2.1 billion): nearly a third of the spending is done through decentralised agencies which the Court reports on separately in our specific annual reports for agencies. The Court identified limitations in the Commission’s assessments of Member States’ management and control systems for the 2007-2013 SOLID programme (‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’). Furthermore, the Commission performed relatively few ex post audits in Member States on programmes it considered to be low risk. However, this reduces the reliability of Member States expenditure for the SOLID programme. Administration (€9 billion): administrative expenditure had the lowest estimated level of error (0.6 %) and was free from material error.
Recommendations from the Court : lastly, to conclude its annual report, the Court noted that there has been a noteworthy decrease in the estimated level of error for ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’; ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ and ‘Natural resources’. Slightly higher levels of error than in 2014 were detected for ‘Global Europe’ and ‘Administration’.
PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2015, as part of the 2015 discharge procedure.
Analysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions: European Commission .
Legal reminder : the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the year 2015 have been prepared on the basis of the information presented by the institutions and bodies under Article 148(2) of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union.
(1) Governance and budgetary principles : the organisational governance of the EU consists of institutions, agencies and other EU bodies. The main institutions in the sense of being responsible for drafting policies and taking decisions are the EP, the European Council, the Council and the Commission .
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 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Commission carries out specific programmes, activities and projects in the field.
The budget is prepared by the Commission and usually agreed in mid-December by the Parliament and the Council, based on the procedure of Art. 314 TFEU.
According to the principle of budget equilibrium, the total revenue must equal total expenditure (payment appropriations) for a given financial year.
EU revenues : the EU has two main categories of funding: own resources revenues and sundry revenues. Own resources can be divided into traditional own resources (such as custom levies), the own resource based on value added tax (VAT) and the resource based on gross national income (GNI). Sundry revenues arising from the activities of the EU (e.g. competition fines) normally represent less than 10 % of total revenue. Own resources revenue make up the vast majority of EU funding.
Expenditure of the EU institutions : the EU's operational expenditure of these institutions takes different forms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed.
From 2014 onwards, the Commission classifies its expenditure as follows:
Direct management : the budget is implemented directly by the Commission services. Indirect management : the Commission confers tasks of implementation of the budget to bodies of EU law or national law, such as the EU agencies. Shared management : under this method of budget implementation tasks are delegated to Member States. About 80 % of the expenditure falls under this management mode covering such areas as agricultural spending and structural actions.
Consolidated annual accounts of the EU : this Commission document concerns the EU's consolidated accounts for the year 2015 and details how spending by the EU institutions and bodies was carried out. The consolidated annual accounts of the EU provide financial information on the activities of the institutions, agencies and other bodies of the EU from an accrual accounting and budgetary perspective.
It also presents the accounting principles applicable to the European budget (in particular, consolidation).
The document also presents the different financial actors involved in the budget process (accounting officers, internal officers and authorising officers) and recalls their respective roles in the context of the tasks of sound financial management.
Audit and discharge : the EU’s annual accounts and resource management are audited by the European Court of Auditors, its external auditor, which as part of its activities draws up for the European Parliament and the Council:
an annual report on the activities financed from the general budget, detailing its observations on the annual accounts and underlying transactions; an opinion, based on its audits and given in the annual report in the form of a statement of assurance, on (i) the reliability of the accounts and (ii) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions involving both revenue collected from taxable persons and payments to final beneficiaries.
The discharge represents the political aspect of the external control of budget implementation and is the decision by which the European Parliament, acting on a Council recommendation, "releases" the Commission (and other EU bodies) from its responsibility for management of a given budget by marking the end of that budget's existence. This discharge procedure may produce three outcomes: (i) the granting; (ii) postponement; (iii) or the refusal of the discharge.
The document also presents a series of tables and detailed technical indicators on (i) the balance sheet; (ii) the economic outturn account; (iii) cashflow tables; (iv) technical annexes concerning the financial statements.
(2) Implementation of the budget for the 2015 financial year : the document also comprises a series of annexes containing figures, the most important of which relates to budgetary implementation.
The document noted that in 2015 the Commission’s budget was EUR 177.2 million (total payments in 2015 with an implementation rate of 97.76%).
As regards the budgetary implementation of the Commission , according to the document, expenses were, of EUR 155.9 billion, at a lower level than last year (2014: EUR 165.3 billion). A decrease of EUR 4.6 billion was noted for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF), which was due to the slow start of the implementation of the programming period 2014-2020. Expenses under the European Social Fund (ESF) fell by EUR 2.8 billion due to fewer cost claims submitted for the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework period.
The main all of which relates to Commission activities. Some 70 % of the Commission's pre-financing concerns shared management, which means that the implementation of the budget is delegated to Member States (the Commission retains a supervisory role). The most significant pre-financing amount under shared management mode relates to ERDF & CF. The long-term pre-financing has increased by EUR expense items (EUR 112.4 billion) are transfer payments under the shared management mode. The main funds are: the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and other rural development instruments, ERDF and CF and the ESF. In the financial year 2015 these made up almost 71 % of total expenses.
Overall, the expenses incurred under direct and indirect management made up about 14 % of total expenses (EUR 22 billion).
Pre-financing : the total pre-financing (excluding other advances to Member States and contributions to trust funds) on the EU balance sheet amounts to EUR 40 billion (2014: EUR 45 billion), almost 12.6 billion related to the new MFF while short-term pre-financing fell by EUR 17.7 billion.
Leverage effect : the significance and volume of financial instruments financed by the EU budget under direct and indirect management increases from year to year. The basic concept behind this approach, in contrast to the traditional method of budget implementation by giving grants and subsidies, is that for each euro spent from the budget via financial instruments, the final beneficiary receives more than EUR 1 as financial support due to the leverage effect . This intelligent use of the EU budget aims at maximising the impact of the funds available.
Financial corrections and recoveries : in 2015, the total financial corrections and recoveries implemented amounted to EUR 3 853 million (2014: EUR 3 285 million). The implementation of financial corrections and recoveries may take a number of years mainly due to instalment or deferral decisions granted to Member States under the agricultural policy. Under the Cohesion policy the legal framework foresees the implementation at or after the closure of the programming period.
Managing the refugee crisis : in the second half of 2015, the European Commission has worked for a swift, coordinated European response to the risks and uncertainties related to the refugee crisis, tabling a series of proposals designed to equip Member States with the tools necessary to better manage the large number of arrivals. From tripling the presence at sea; through a new system of emergency solidarity to relocate asylum seekers from the most affected countries; via an unprecedented mobilisation of the EU budget of over EUR 10 billion to address the refugee crisis and assist the countries most affected; all the way to an ambitious proposal for a new European Border and Coast Guard, the European Union is bolstering Europe's asylum and migration policy to deal with the new challenges it is facing.
Despite these measures taken, uncertainty surrounding the strong inflow of asylum seekers and its economic impact remains high.
As a first and immediate step, the Commission reinforced funding for the years 2015 and 2016 of Frontex, Europol and EASO (EUR 170 million) and has increased financial contributions to the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF) from initially EUR 2 billion to EUR 3.7 billion. Immediate financial support for activities related to the refugee crisis outside the EU led to an increase in Humanitarian aid (EUR 2.2 billion), the creation of the EU Trust Fund for Syria (EUR 500 million), the creation of the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUR 1.8 billion), the creation of the refugee facility in Turkey (EUR 1 billion) and other measures relating to security and boarder control (EUR 300 million), counter terrorism (EUR 100 million) and to the return of displaced persons and refugees (EUR 280 million).
In total, the measures taken in 2015 bring the overall package (future budgets) to assist European farmers to about EUR 500 million.
Budget implementation in 2015 in figures:
surplus of EUR 1.3 billion : this surplus mainly comes from the revenue side, in particular the revision of VAT and GNI in 2014, including payments by Member States made in 2015. expenditure : payment appropriations of the final budget adopted, excluding special instruments, amounted to EUR 141.1 billion, which is 1.6% more than in 2014. The total amount of payments reached EUR 145.2 billion (against EUR 142.5 billion in 2014); RAL commitments : commitment appropriations available amount to EUR 181.3 billion were executed at an overall level of 97.7% - the outstanding commitments (the "RAL") have increased from EUR 189.6 billion at the end 2014 to EUR 217.7 billion at the end 2015. This increase reflects the intensification of the implementation of the new programming period.
Documents
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0143/2017
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0150/2017
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE600.919
- Committee opinion: PE597.490
- Committee opinion: PE595.617
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2017)0124
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2017)0101
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2017)0120
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05876/2017
- Committee opinion: PE595.387
- Committee draft report: PE593.832
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05874/2017
- Committee opinion: PE594.060
- Committee opinion: PE592.088
- Committee opinion: PE592.297
- Committee opinion: PE592.130
- Committee opinion: PE592.309
- Committee opinion: PE593.956
- Committee opinion: PE593.854
- Committee opinion: PE593.973
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2016)0338
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2016)0339
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0674
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0628
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2016)0322
- Court of Auditors: opinion, report: OJ C 375 13.10.2016, p. 0001
- Court of Auditors: opinion, report: N8-0074/2016
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0474
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2016)0475
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex COM(2016)0474
- Court of Auditors: opinion, report: OJ C 375 13.10.2016, p. 0001 N8-0074/2016
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0628
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2016)0322
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0674 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2016)0338
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2016)0339
- Committee opinion: PE593.854
- Committee opinion: PE593.973
- Committee opinion: PE592.130
- Committee opinion: PE592.309
- Committee opinion: PE593.956
- Committee opinion: PE592.088
- Committee opinion: PE592.297
- Committee opinion: PE594.060
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05874/2017
- Committee draft report: PE593.832
- Committee opinion: PE595.387
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05876/2017
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2017)0120 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2017)0124 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2017)0101
- Committee opinion: PE595.617
- Committee opinion: PE597.490
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE600.919
Activities
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
Amendments | Dossier |
232 |
2016/2151(DEC)
2016/12/06
AGRI
73 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the 2.9% error rate established by the European Court of Auditors for
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Warns that some Member States, in the interests of simplification, try to abolish payments to farms that receive amounts of less than EUR 300, an injustice affecting the very smallest farms and one that the Commission shall not tolerate; points out that the road to simplification lies in any case in cutting bureaucracy for these farms;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Asks the European Court of Auditors to continue to provide separate assessments for the EAGF, the EAFRD and Heading 2, also beyond the next financial year, as separate assessments allow for targeted action for improvement of the considerably different error rates;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that there is a significant difference in types of error, i.e. the
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that there is a significant difference in types of error, i.e. the distinction between negligence and large errors; notes that most of the quantifiable errors involve overstating of eligible areas and that, overall, they account for 0.7% of the estimated aggregate error rate while there are only isolated instances of shortcomings on the part of national administrations or of infringements by them; points out furthermore that
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that there is a significant difference in types of error
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that there is a significant difference in types of error, i.e. the distinction between negligence and large errors; notes that most of the quantifiable errors involve overstating of eligible areas and that, overall, they account for 0.7 % of the estimated aggregate error rate while there are only isolated instances of shortcomings on the part of national administrations or of infringements by them; points out furthermore that, in many instances, there has not been an investment failure, but, rather, there has been
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Member States to ensure reliable and up-to-date information and images in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) to reduce the risk of errors associated with overstated eligible land; takes the view that the Commission should require Member State action plans to include remedial action to deal with the most frequent causes of error, revise its own strategy for rural development conformity audits, and ensure the correct application of assurance procedure on legality and regularity of transactions;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Urges that a clearer distinction be made between different types of error, since some errors detected in relation to direct payments in particular do not have any negative financial implications, for example incorrect declarations of area resulting from overuse, and these errors can be classified in four categories: 1. errors with no negative financial implications, 2. negligence (where compensation can be claimed for the financial damage), 3. gross negligence, 4. corruption (a criminal offence);
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Encourages the use of simplified cost options such as standard unit costs where appropriate in rural development programmes, in order to further reduce the error rate in rural development spending, decrease the administrative burden and incentivise entrepreneurship;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Whereas the CAP must be made more effective and its legitimacy reaffirmed as one of the principal tools for EU action aimed at the retention and creation of employment and competitiveness in rural areas, mainly in the farming sector;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the 2.9% error rate established by the European Court of Auditors for agriculture for 2015 - in 2014 it was 3.6% - continues to decline;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Takes the view that the integrated administrative control system (IACS), when implemented properly, is an effective tool for limiting irregular agricultural spending and makes a significant contribution to preventing and reducing the levels of error in the schemes to which it applies;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the reliability of information on CAP direct payments as reported by Member States is often seriously undermined as a result of misreporting; based on the Annual Activity Report 2015 from Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Member States have sufficient information to detect and correct errors before declaring the expenditure to the Commission, and stresses, in that connection, if the Member States would have acted on this information, the error rate would have been 0.6 percentage point lower 1a; __________________ 1a European Commission - Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2015), Annual Activity Report.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the reliability of information on CAP direct payments as reported by Member States is often seriously undermined as a result of misreporting; notes the delays in the supplying of information and stresses that Member States should forward reports in a timely manner;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the reliability of
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the reliability of information on CAP direct payments as reported by Member States is often seriously undermined as a result of misreporting; questions, as a result, how accurate the calculation of error rates is;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the reliability of information on rural development programmes and CAP direct payments as reported by Member States is often seriously undermined as a result of misreporting;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the reliability of information on CAP direct payments as reported by Member States
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new) Stresses the importance of the possibility of paying advances before 16 of October and also after the year 2017, especially concerning area-based payments to areas facing natural or other specific concerns while bearing in mind the economic situation of the farmers and two derogations made to the Article 75 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 concerning years 2015 and 2016;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that the error rates detected by the Court, with a small sample of payments tested (180) is now very close to that estimated by the Commission from its examination of thousands of on-the-spot checks, and considers that further significant reduction in error rates could only be achieved at a disproportionate cost in view of the measures which have already been put in place in recent years particularly in the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and financial corrections to protect the EU budget in this policy area;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that with the processing of CAP procedures being gradually privatised through banks, agencies and other bodies, relegating the role of government departments just to registration, declarations are not completed with the necessary rigour because the appropriate technical knowledge is lacking; considers that a good many of the errors occur for this reason;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the 2.9% error rate established by the European Court of Auditors for agriculture for 2015 - in 2014 it was 3.6% - continues to decline
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Urges both the Commission and Member State authorities to continue to address and reduce the complexities in relation to direct payments, wherever possible, and in particular if there are many different levels involved in the administration of EAGF and rural development funds within Member States;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Acknowledges the increasing level of suspension and interruption of payments by the Commission, which ensures that corrective actions are systematically carried out in cases where deficiencies are identified;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Asks the European Commission and the Member States for CAP procedures to be wholly processed by government agriculture departments;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Both government departments and applicants find processing CAP procedures complex, and applications are rejected because of difficulties in understanding the forms and how to submit them;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Draws attention to the fact that many small-scale programmes, such as the school fruit and school milk schemes, are not user-friendly, partly because of the red tape involved, meaning less than perfect acceptance and implementation; stresses the need to tailor small-scale programmes to local characteristics; welcomes Commissioner Hogan’s simplification initiatives in this connection;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Draws attention to the fact that many small-scale programmes, such as the school fruit and school milk schemes, are not user-friendly, partly because of the red tape involved, meaning less than perfect acceptance and implementation;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Draws attention to the fact that many small-scale programmes, such as the school fruit and school milk schemes, are not user-friendly, partly because of the red tape involved, meaning less than perfect acceptance and implementation; welcomes Commissioner Hogan’s simplification initiatives in this connection;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Draws attention to the fact that many small-scale programmes, such as the school fruit and school milk schemes, are not user-friendly, partly because of the red tape involved, meaning less than perfect acceptance and implementation;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points out that small-scale programmes arouse less interest and/or show persistently high error rates because of their rigidity; suggests that the Commission, therefore, review and simplify such programmes with the aim of reducing the red tape associated with them, which would serve both to make them more attractive and to reduce error rates;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Points out that DG AGRI did a considerable amount of work in 2015 to ensure that Member State authorities were increasingly able to prevent errors in agricultural spending and implement their rural development programmes; congratulates DG AGRI for the positive impact apparent in the 2015 European Court of Auditors Annual Report and believes its actions should provide a good foundation for the key years in the 2014- 2020 spending period;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Welcomes the simplification efforts made by the Commission and hopes that further steps forward will be taken during the revision of the CAP;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls for more disclosure by the Commission and the Member States and for procedures to be simplified;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Welcomes the information measures launched by the Commission with regard to the opportunities offered by CAP projects and announcements relating thereto, so that end users can benefit from them more;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the use of additional financial instruments, though they must be designed with a sufficient degree of immediate compatibility to ensure that they do not result in an increased error rate;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Endorses the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors which, having to assist Parliament in determining efficient legislation for the proper management of funds, has already expressed its critical views on the coexistence of cross-compliance and greening rules, which were a key aspect of the last reform, referring to their possible effects on the inefficiency of controls and increase in red tape;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. welcomes the reduction in the error rate in comparison to previous years and takes note of the significant efforts made and major resources allocated to this, especially in the form of IT and technical support for implementation, but considers that a straightforward error assessment does not in itself constitute an assessment of performance or results;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls, in relation to national payment agencies in the Member States that have fallen short of expectations in the past three years, for EU officials who are already in post rather than nationals of the Member State concerned to be responsible in those payment agencies;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Draws attention to the multi- annuality of the agricultural policy management system and emphasises that the final evaluation of irregularities related to the implementation of the directive will be possible only at the end of the programming period;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Welcomes the new rules for the planning period 2014-2020, including measures such as the designation of audit and certifying authorities, the accreditation of audit authorities, financial analysis and the recognition of accounts, financial corrections and net financial corrections, proportional control, ex ante conditionalities that aim to further contribute to the reduction of the level of error; welcomes also the definition of serious deficiencies and the anticipated increased level of corrections for repeated deficiencies;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the Commission’s proposed new approach to error rate analysis; welcomes also the Commission’s new procedure, likely to be applied for the first time in 2016, for prior checks,
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the Commission’s proposed new approach to error rate analysis; welcomes also the Commission’s
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the Commission’s proposed new approach to error rate analysis; welcomes also the Commission’s new procedure, likely to be applied for the first time in 2016, for prior checks, while retaining the method for dealing with minor errors; stressing that more proportionality is needed for the penalty system;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the Commission
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Welcomes the reduction in error rates compared to 2014 and acknowledges the major efforts and resources devoted to achieving this, particularly through information and technical support from the Commission to Member State authorities concerning implementation;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses the need of inter alia strengthening of the monitoring and evaluation systems in order to reduce the risk of weaknesses and errors and to measure progress towards the achievement of the policy's general objectives;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the updating of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS), which makes it possible to record areas more precisely; draws attention to the backlog in land registration in some Member States, which is liable to affect future funding, and calls on the national authorities to use existing digital technology to ensure timely registration; realises that as a result of using this central control system there will inevitably be an increase in error rates over the first few years, because of greater data reliability, as the European Court of Auditors confirms, but that, in the long term, there will be lower error rates in this area; points out that there are already efforts and initiatives at Member State level for further simplification of the CAP while ensuring complete compatibility with GPS measurements;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the updating of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS), which makes it possible to record areas more precisely and to reduce the risk of errors associated with overstated eligible land; realises that as a result of using this central control system there will inevitably be an increase in error rates over the first few years, because of greater data reliability, as the European Court of Auditors confirms, but that, in the long term, there will be lower error rates in this area; points out that there are already
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the updating of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS), which makes it possible to record areas more precisely; realises that as a result of using this
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the continual updating of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS), which makes it possible to record areas more
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new) Stresses the importance of reducing the bureaucratic burden for both the farmers and the administration caused by a duplicated measurement of areas that have been measured (already) earlier;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Notes that the simplification of the CAP should not put viable food production at risk and calls for measures to shift towards a low carbon economy in the agri-food and forestry sectors;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Notes that the integrated administrative control system (IACS)
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Notes that the integrated administrative control system (IACS) is being used properly, since the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the error rate for the first pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (EAGF: 2.2 %) is very different from that for the second CAP pillar (EAFRD: 5.3 %) and that that considerable difference is accounted for by the fact that the two CAP pillars differ in design, scale and objectives; notes that the bureaucratic burden in respect of funding under the second pillar is contributing to the increase in the number of errors and stresses the need to continue simplifying EAFRD funding procedures; welcomes the fact that direct payments were predominantly regular;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Welcomes inclusion of a wider range of indicators in its annual activity report to demonstrate trends in the policy area over time and encourages the Commission to continue this practice to better inform the co-legislators and the Court on development of the sector, its impact and wider context;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Maintains that the CAP should seek to increase agricultural productivity, provide a fair standard of living for the farming population, stabilise markets, guarantee security of supply, and ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Notes that 2015 is the first year being audited in which greening measures were fully mandatory, which led to an anticipated increase in the error rate;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Notes with concern that amounts to be paid, commitments from the current year extending into future years, remain at a very high level, and calls on the Commission to draw up a cash flow forecast for the next seven to ten years;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the error rate for the first pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (EAGF: 2.2%) is very different from that for the second CAP pillar (EAFRD: 5.3%) and that that considerable difference is accounted for by the fact that the two CAP pillars differ in design, scale and objectives;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the publication of DG AGRI’s 2015 activity report, which clearly shows the contribution made by the common agricultural policy to the competitiveness of European farming, the agri-food sector and the strengthening of rural areas; calls, therefore, for the CAP to be placed on a sound financial footing in the future too, so that it can continue to work towards the objectives enshrined in the Treaties while also making its own contribution to conserving the environment and coping with climate change;
source: 595.411
2016/12/08
FEMM
16 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that gender equality is a cross-cutting objective for all policy areas; notes, however, that
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that,
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a gender equality pillar into the Europe 2020 strategy and for the inclusion of specific gender-related targets;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Court of Auditors to
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates its previous calls on the Commission to ensure the full implementation of the funds allocated to the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme and urges it to take immediate steps to increase funding for the promotion of gender equality; notes that full implementation of the 2015 budget is declared by the use of global commitments, not allowing for a clear assessment of the use of the funds;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Reminds the Commission of the Budgeting for Results and reiterates the Parliament's demand to include the common set of result indicators for the implementation of the Union budget, which would allow for better assessment of the implementation of the budget from the gender perspective;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that gender equality is a cross-cutting objective for all policy areas; notes, however, that a
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that gender equality
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that, as stated in Article 8 TFEU, equality between women and men is one of the values on which the European Union is founded and the Union promotes it; considers that gender equality must be mainstreamed in all policies and therefore this has to be taken into account in the budgetary procedures;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Repeats its calls on the Commission to implement gender budgeting at all stages of the budgetary process, including, inter alia, in the implementation of the budget and the assessment of its execution, including EFSI, ESF, ERDF, Horizon 2020, in order to combat the discrimination taking place in the EU Member States; stresses that quantifiable indicators for results and impact of the budget implementation on the achievement of gender equality objectives must be incorporated in the planning and evaluation of the budget, in line with the Budget Focused on Results initiative and the focus on performance;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Repeats its calls on the Commission to implement gender budgeting
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Repeats its calls on the Commission to implement gender budgeting in all budget lines and at all stages of the budgetary process, including, inter alia, in the implementation of the budget and the assessment of its execution, including EFSI, ESF, ERDF, Horizon 2020; stresses that quantifiable indicators for results and impact of the budget implementation on the achievement of gender equality objectives must be incorporated in the planning and evaluation of the budget, in line with the Budget Focused on Results initiative and the focus on performance;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to use gender budgeting analysis of both new and existing budget lines and, where possible, to make necessary policy changes to ensure that gender inequality does not occur indirectly;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
source: 595.604
2016/12/12
PECH
36 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes note of the opinions of the Court of Auditors on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts; takes note that the positive trend of recent years in financial management has been maintained, with the accumulated error rate falling to 0.74% in 2015; notes the adverse opinion of the Court of Auditors on payment appropriations, in respect of which the overall error rate was 3.8 %, but lower than in 2014 and with no specific error rate concerning fisheries; calls for fisheries to be dealt with separately and not merged with agriculture, in order to guarantee greater transparency in the area of fisheries;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Underlines the
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Underlines that the information provided by independent ex post evaluations was not always sufficiently complete, consistent or comparable, which reduced its usefulness in the decision-making process and negotiations;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the increase in funding applications in 2015 under the Europe for Citizens programme and the Creative Europe programme
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 b (new) 12b. Expresses concern at the lack of reliable information on fish stocks and on the fishing effort of domestic fishing fleets, or of other foreign fleets that have also been granted access, as one of the main objectives of the FPAs is only to fish surplus stocks and this was proven as very difficult to implement in practice;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes, as regards the ‘Citizens’ Europe’ programme, a severe imbalance between the budgets allocated to the two strands, with only 20% of the total budget set aside for strand 1 (European remembrance) and 60% for strand 2 (Democratic engagement and civic participation); calls on the Commission to remedy this imbalance in order to respond to the frustration felt by many applicants under strand 1;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 c (new) 12c. Urges the Commission to monitor more closely the implementation of sectoral support and takes the view that the trade-related parts of the agreements should ultimately be made conditional upon effective, sufficiently monitored, substantial sectoral support;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that EACEA plays an important role in delivering the three programmes; welcomes the greater use of online project applications by the Agency; expresses concern, however, that users continue to perceive systems as too complex and urges EACEA to
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls for additional fiscal effort in the field of international fisheries agreements, in view of the major fishing grounds still awaiting new protocols;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that EACEA plays an important role in delivering the three programmes;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Takes
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Takes due note of the European Court of Auditors Special Report 16/2016 entitled "EU education objectives: programmes aligned but shortcomings in performance measurement" and its recommendations; concurs with the Court that education objectives should be properly embedded in Operational Programmes (OPs) and welcomes the improved design of OPs identified by the Court for the 2014-2020 programme period; notes the Court's insistence that there always be a clear link between education measures and employability; reiterates that, while a central aspect of education should be to prepare students for the labour market, the delivery of high-quality education goes far beyond simply enhancing employability and calls on the Court and the Commission to ensure a broader focus is maintained;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Expresses concern at the ongoing pressure on capacity at the four European schools in Brussels, three of which were officially overcrowded in both 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; welcomes the Belgian government’s decision to make a fifth European school available in Brussels as of the 2019-2020 school year; endorses the Board of Governors’ decision to make the Berkendael site available as a temporary extension of the Brussels I school;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Expresses concern at the ongoing pressure on capacity at the four European schools in Brussels, three of which were officially overcrowded in both 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; welcomes the Belgian government’s decision to make a fifth European school available in Brussels as of the 2019-2020 school year; underlines the repeated recommendation of the European Court of Auditors to the Central Office of European Schools to provide more guidelines on planning and designing procurement procedures; stresses that the Central Office and European Schools should follow the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules as well as to implement simplification of the selection and award criteria and the improvement of documentation;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Expresses growing concern that the European Schools are not acting on problems repeatedly identified by the European Court of Auditors and highlighted by the European Parliament in its discharge reports; notes with alarm that, in its 'Report on the annual accounts of the European schools for the financial year 2015', the Court reports that the Schools did not prepare their annual accounts within the legal deadline and declares that it is "unable to confirm that the financial management was sound";
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Urges the Commission to conduct a more comprehensive review of the Erasmus+ programme, to ensure that it provides real opportunities to learn the language of the host country, and to remove all obstacles so that everyone, including students with a disability (defrayal of accommodation and transport costs), overseas students who live more than 12 000 km from mainland Europe and apprentices, can take part in the programme;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes note of efforts by EU institutions to reduce the payments backlog; highlights that a recurring payments backlog can be avoided by respecting payments appropriations, providing adequate resources in the revision of the MFF, and establishing a system of own-resources for the EU;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Urges the Commission to pay close attention to the overall functioning of and the problems facing the 10 other type-I European schools and also to support the type-II and type-III schools by facilitating admission for all children to type-II schools;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls the concerns expressed by Youth NGOs concerning the decentralisation of funding disbursements for Erasmus+; welcomes the commitment of the Commission to find a solution to this issue; stresses that involving stakeholders and beneficiaries in the meetings of the Programme Committee may pave the way for a sustainable and shared solution;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Reiterates that the incorporation of all mobility programmes for young people in the EU into ERASMUS+ is primarily intended to increase their efficacy, and therefore urges the Commission to stick to the agreed aims and programme budget lines in order to avoid the programme losing its focus;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Takes the view that the Member States should improve the instruments and channels they use to transmit information to the Commission;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the responsiveness of both Erasmus+ and Creative Europe in reacting to the emerging challenges of refugee/migrant integration and anti- radicalisation in 2015;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Takes the view that the
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that loans under the Student Loan Guarantee Facility (Erasmus+ Master Loan) were made available for the first time in 2015, with two banks in Spain and France launching the scheme; insists that, to become a viable loan facility, it will be vital to ensure broad geographic coverage and for the Commission to monitor closely the lending conditions;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to provide all necessary assistance to the Member States to facilitate the transition from direct management to shared management of the EMFF and to ensure that EMFF resources are used properly and fully; therefore welcomes the fact that this issue is taken fully into account in the DG MARE audit programme for 2017;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Welcomes the increased funding for ERASMUS+ in 2017, emphasises the need to increase the budget for the subsequent programme years by at least the same amount, and calls for this money to be spent exclusively on programme lines that exist already;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Recalls that 2015 was the first year in which the Creative Europe programme was managed across two Commission Directorates-General, DG EAC and DG CNECT; insists on the need for a coordinated approach so that internal organisational challenges do not impair the functioning of the programme or public perception of it;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Underlines
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the increase in funding applications in 2015 under the Europe for Citizens and Creative Europe programmes, in particular its Culture sub-programme;
source: 595.625
2016/12/13
REGI
55 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the main sources of errors are those found in the application of rules on eligibility, infringements of public procurement rules and state aid rules; underlines that for errors made in 2015
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Reminds that 2014 was a start of new programming period, however, most of the Cohesion Policy's payments in 2014 were related to the previous programming period;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that a simplification of the eligibility rules and public procurement rules would make it possible to significantly reduce the current error rate in cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible proposals to achieve this goal, which will have to be approved by the national authorities;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Recalls that not all irregularities are fraud and that non-fraudulent and fraudulent irregularities must be differentiated; points out that non- fraudulent irregularities result often from weak financial management and control systems as well as the lack of administrative capacity, relating to both knowledge of the rules and of technical expertise concerning the specific works or services;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Calls on the Commission, in the course of closure of programmes, to assess the efficiency of cohesion policy spending towards the end of the 2007- 2013 programming period in view of generating information on overprized, wasteful or meaningless projects that are implemented for the purpose of absorbing allocated resources, and to report its findings to the European Parliament;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Stresses that the complexity of procedures relating to eligibility rules seriously undermines the effectiveness of the European Structural Funds, and that it is important to simplify them with a view to increasing the absorption rate in the interest of project beneficiaries and promoters;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the Commission to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015 which is basically the same error rate as in 2013 (5,3 %); highlights the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the 1 1 HLG to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the Commission to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidance;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the Commission to clarify to Member States the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidance in particular for public beneficiaries, small and medium enterprises, to avoid different interpretation of the term 'non- recoverable' VAT and avoid a sub-optimal use of EU funds; _________________ 1 High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the Commission to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidance; calls on the Commission to fundamentally simplify the state aid rules, in particular to ensure better co-ordination with cohesion policy; _________________ 1 High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; in this context, underlines the importance of applying the single audit principle; urges the Commission to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidance; _________________ 1 High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Points out the overall reinforced procedures in the regulatory framework 2014-2020, where management verifications and controls have to be carried out before the certification to the Commission and is confident that these reinforced procedures should result in lasting reductions of the error rate.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Expresses satisfaction with the results for the ESI Funds obtained by the Commission's Task Force for Better Implementation (TFBI), which reduced bottlenecks and delays in the allocation and use of the Structural Funds for 2006- 2013
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Expresses its concern that managing authorities presented a lower level of cost claims for reimbursement in 2015 than in 2014, which led to a fall in the level of unpaid cost claims from EUR 23,2 billion in 2014 to EUR 10,8 billion in 2015, of which EUR 2,8 billion had remained unpaid since the end of 2014; points out
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Expresses its concern that managing authorities presented a lower level of cost claims for reimbursement in 2015 than in 2014, which led to a fall in the level of unpaid cost claims from EUR 23,2 billion in 2014 to EUR 10,8 billion in 2015, of which EUR 2,8 billion had remained unpaid since the end of 2014; points out the risk that delays in the budgetary execution for 2014-2020 period will be greater than those for the previous period and lead to an accumulation of unpaid claims towards the end of the funding period; Urges the Commission to monitor the situation closely with Member States and adapt its payment plan accordingly;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights that the trend of the reduced level of error
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Expresses its concern that managing authorities presented a lower level of cost claims for reimbursement in 2015 than in 2014, which led to a fall in the level of unpaid cost claims from EUR 23,2 billion in 2014 to EUR 10,8 billion in 2015, of which EUR 2,8 billion had remained unpaid since the end of 2014; points out the risk that delays in the budgetary execution for 2014-2020 period will be greater than those for the previous period, owing to the amount for reimbursement claims and unpaid invoices at the end of 2014 and 2015 for the 2014-2020 programmes still being negligible;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that with fixed payment appropriations, extending the increased co-financing rates for Member States which have benefited from financial assistance will automatically lead to an increase in late payments; calls on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible proposals to reduce these payment delays, which undermine the effectiveness of the Structural Funds to the detriment of beneficiaries such as SMEs and local authorities;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated; urges Member States to speed up this process
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated; urges Member States to speed up this process and the Commission to provide assistance and clarifications; points out that the late designation of management authorities creates serious gaps in the implementation of funding programmes and poses the risk of de- commitment of funds at the end of the funding period;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with concern that, as of 30 June 2016, not all Member States had transposed the directives on public procurement and urges the Commission to assist Member States increase their capacity to transpose those directives, as well as to implement all their action plans on ex ante conditionalities; stresses the importance of implementing the action plan on public procurement for ESI funds 2014-2020 with a view to simplifying, speeding up and harmonising electronic public procurement procedures;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission; reminds that the Commission should ensure legal consistency between State aid rules applying to ESI Funds and public procurement rules in order to ensure that monitoring and evaluation requirements are focused on the information really needed to determine the performance and results of the programmes, and to avoid adding extra reporting burdens on the beneficiaries; highlights, moreover, that the Commission should review the reporting requirements and the indicators in the fund-specific regulations and those elements that do not reflect a result-driven approach should be deleted or frequency of collection of such data should be reduced to avoid double reporting;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with concern that, as of 30 June 2016, not all Member States had transposed the directives on public procurement and urges the Commission to continue to assist Member States increase their capacity to transpose those directives, as well as to implement all their action plans on ex ante conditionalities;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Calls on the Member States to fully comply with the ex-ante conditionality on public procurement which is an essential pre-requisite for prevention of fraudulent and non- fraudulent irregularities and to take swift action, when applicable, in order to fulfil all criteria for the sake of sound and lawful implementation of cohesion policy programmes and measures;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes with concern that the average disbursement rate for 1 025 ERDF and ESF financial instruments was 57 % at the end of 2014, which represents only a 10 % increase compared to 2013; notes the Court’s observation on the extention of the eligibility period of disbursements made to final recipients within financial instruments by means of a Commission Decision rather than an amending Regulation;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes with concern that the average disbursement rate for 1 025 ERDF and ESF financial instruments was 57 % at the end of 2014, which represents only a 10 % increase compared to 2013;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Considers inadequate the extension of the eligibility period of financial instruments which does not prevent Member States from the practise of parking cohesion policy resources instead of investing in the real economy; Calls on the Commission to monitor closely the execution of financial instruments governed by the 2014-2020 legislative framework and assess whether further adaptations are necessary in view of ensuring the contribution of financial instruments to Union objectives and priorities;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to propose measures to achieve balance between greater simplification and strict application of rules and the good fiscal management and notes that the interruption and suspension of payments in case of irregularities should be the measures of the last resort;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Recommends that the Commission should recover unused cash balances in financial instruments under shared management and remaining unused funds in indirect management financial instruments from previous MFFs for which the eligibility period has expired;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Invites the Commission to re- evaluate the ex-ante assessment for the CEF debt instrument in the light of creation of the EFSI and to thoroughly assess the impact of EFSI on other EU programmes and financial instruments;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Urges the Commission to ensure that all the expenditure related to ERDF and ESF financial instruments for the 2007-2013 programming period are included sufficiently early in the closure declarations to enable audit authorities to carry out their checks;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission; welcomes the fact that programmes to inform and train beneficiaries and simplification measures to make the rules less complex and reduce bureaucracy have contributed to the reduction in the number of errors;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges the revised Financial Regulation recently proposed by the Commission with its supporting acts, as well as the proposed review of the MFF, aiming at simplification and more flexibility and synergies; calls on the Commission to identify more efficient channels of communication in order to increase the visibility of investments using ESI funds; urges the Commission, all institutions and stakeholders involved to reconsider the delivery mechanism for the ESI funds post 2020, taking into account the suggestions of the HLG;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges the revised Financial Regulation recently proposed by the Commission with its supporting acts, as well as the proposed review of the MFF, aiming at simplification of procedures and more flexibility and synergies; urges the Commission, all institutions and stakeholders involved to reconsider the delivery mechanism for the ESI funds post 2020, taking into account the suggestions of the HLG;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the Court’s approach to focus on performance and considers it good practice that managing authorities define relevant result indicators measuring the contribution of the projects to the achievement of the objectives set for the operational programmes
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the Court’s approach to focus on performance and considers it good practice that managing authorities define relevant result indicators measuring the contribution of the projects to the achievement of the objectives set for the operational programmes in accordance with the additionality criterion.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Urges the Commission and Member States to make the best use of the territorial instruments by ensuring that in due term the Integrated Urban Development Strategies are approved for financing, which will allow cities to invest in comprehensive strategies, exploit synergies between policies and ensuring a more effective long-term impact on growth and jobs.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission, and expects it to be further reduced;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the main sources of errors are those found in the application of rules on eligibility, infringements of public procurement rules and state aid rules; underlines that errors made in 2015 may also be corrected before closure; notes
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the main sources of errors are those found in the application of rules on eligibility, infringements of public procurement rules and state aid rules; underlines that errors made in 2015 may also be corrected before closure; notes with satisfaction the significant improvements in audit authorities’ controls compared to the previous year; stresses that ineligible costs in expenditure declarations and ineligible projects account for three quarters of the error, while serious infringements of public procurement rules make up one seventh of the total (one half in 2014);
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the main sources of errors are those found in the application of rules on eligibility, infringements of public procurement rules and state aid rules, and consequently calls on the Commission to provide timely information and training to authorities with regard to public procurement and state aid rules; underlines that errors made in 2015 may also be corrected before closure; notes with satisfaction the significant improvements in audit authorities’ controls compared to the previous year;
source: 595.664
2016/12/14
AFET
52 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes with regret that the level of error in Heading 4 for the 2015 financial year, as estimated by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) in its annual report, has not decreased compared to 2014 and amounts to 2,8%;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the estimated error level in the policy area of economic, social and territorial cohesion is
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that Member State laws too often further tighten the conditions for implementing projects, leading to less transparency and the selection of poorer projects, and making projects difficult to implement;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Notes that DG SANTE was responsible, in 2015, for implementing EUR 237 251 659 on public health budget lines, of which 97,4% have been committed satisfactorily; however, these funds have proved insufficient to support Member States' health systems; also takes note that the level of execution of payments is at 97,2%; stresses, however, that all credits under the Health domain were fully implemented, except for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA); nevertheless underlines that the under-execution of those commitment appropriations fully corresponds to the outturn of 2014;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes with concern that, by the end of 2015, fewer than 20% of the national authorities responsible for the European Structural and Investment Funds (
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, by the end of 2015, fewer than 20% of the national authorities responsible for the European Structural and Investment Funds (“ESIF”) had been designated and that, consequently, there is a risk that delays in budgetary execution for the 2014 to 2020 programming period will be greater than those in the 2007-2013 period; calls on the Commission to take necessary precautions to ensure that these foreseen delays do not give rise to the same budgetary complications that were seen at the end of the previous programming period;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Welcomes the establishment of the Mission Support Platform aimed at reducing the administrative burden and increasing the efficiency of civilian CSDP missions; regrets its limited size and scope and reiterates its call for further progress towards a Shared Services Centre, which would lead to further budgetary and efficiency gains through centralising all mission support services that do not need to be ensured locally;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, by the end of 2015, fewer than 20% of the national authorities responsible for the European Structural and Investment Funds (“ESIF”) had been designated and that, consequently, there is a risk that delays in budgetary execution for the 2014 to 2020 programming period will be greater than those in the 2007-2013 period; calls on the Commission to take action and on those Member States which lag behind to act more swiftly;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Reiterates that pursuant to Article 41(2) TEU expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications shall not be charged to the Union budget; rejects any attempt to deviate from this rule;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes the ECA recommendation that the Commission immediately and fundamentally reconsiders the design and delivery mechanism for the ESIFs when making its legislative proposal for the next programming period and takes into account the suggestions of the high level simplification group;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Encourages further progress on upgrading the CSDP warehouse in order to allow for the reuse of equipment that is no longer needed and its reallocation between missions based on actual needs, thus achieving savings as well as making necessary equipment more readily available;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Rejects reform of the Athena mechanism until after the negotiations for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union are completed;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of including EU funding programmes in their Annual Burden Survey as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making of 13 April 2016;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reiterates
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Highlights that the introduction of Annual Burden Reduction Targets that include EU funding programmes would increase compliance and therefore contribute to a reduction in the error rate;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Takes note of the ECA Special reports 11/2016, 20/2016 and 21/2016 that focus on EU pre-accession assistance for strengthening administrative capacity in the Western Balkans; welcomes all the recommendations made by the ECA and encourages the Commission to implement them; draws attention in particular to the importance of ensuring responsive, targeted and flexible assistance to the candidate and potential candidate countries from the Western Balkans, as well as of making full use of available instruments for stimulating the necessary reforms for a European path of these countries;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Is concerned with the shortcomings in relation to information provided by the Member States concerning key aspects included in their national Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans; notes that examples of shortcomings include inadequate monitoring and reporting arrangements for the Youth Guarantee scheme;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Calls for more transparency and accountability;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Notes the European Commission's decision to set up a high level group of simplification in response to the significant administrative burden on beneficiaries caused by the increasing levels of control;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes with regret that the level of error in Heading 4 for the 2015 financial year, as estimated by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) in its annual report, has not decreased compared to 2014 and amounts to 2,8%, and that in seven cases the Commission had sufficient information to prevent or detect and correct the errors before accepting the expenditure; points out, nevertheless, that this is below the level of error identified in other headings, in spite of the fact that Union external aid activities frequently take place in crisis-struck regions and politically difficult environments;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes with concern that the estimated error level in the policy area of economic, social and territorial cohesion is 5,2%, which represents a small decrease of 0,5% from last year but is still unacceptably high and remains far from the target of 2%;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Welcomes equally the recommendations suggested by the ECA in the Special report 13/2016 on the EU assistance for strengthening the public administration in Moldova and in the Special report 32/2016 on EU assistance to Ukraine; considers that the EU should fully use the leverage of the conditionality and ensure proper monitoring of the implementation of the reforms undertaken in order to positively contribute to the reinforcement of democratic practices both in Moldova and Ukraine;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Welcomes the European Court of Auditors' recommendation to the European Commission to clarify the links between the Europe 2020 strategy, the multi-annual financial framework and the Commission priorities in order to report effectively on the contribution of the EU budget towards Europe 2020 objectives;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Welcomes the increased focus on results under the current programming period; considers, however, that further developing result indicators and monitoring systems would contribute to sound financial accountability and increase the efficiency of future operating programmes;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports all recommendations formulated by the ECA based on its findings;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the estimated error level
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Draws attention to problems linked to staff management, notably the frequent cases of conflicts of interest reported at some agencies;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the principal sources of error in this area are the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries’ cost declarations
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that this error rate is not entirely satisfactory as it is still higher than the overall error rate for the European Union's general budget, which is 3.8%, and more important still, higher than the materiality threshold of 2%;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the principal sources of error in this area are the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries´ cost declarations, the selection of ineligible projects, activities and beneficiaries and the infringement of public procurement and State aid rules which can't always be categorised as an administrative error;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is satisfied with the overall implementation of the LIFE+ operational budget, which amounted to 99,95 % in 2015 for commitment appropriations and 98,93% for payment appropriations; stresses that LIFE+ has helped to increase public awareness and participation in legislation and the implementation of EU environment policy, in addition to improving governance in this sector; notes that in 2015 EUR 225,9 million were committed for action grants, EUR 40 million were used for financial instruments managed by the European Investment Bank and EUR 59,2 million were used for measures intended to support the Commission's role of initiating and monitoring policy and legislation development; notes that EUR 10,2 million were used for administrative support to LIFE and for support to the Executive Agency for Small and Medium- sized Enterprises (EASME);
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes with concern the persisting deficiencies in the quality of expenditure verifications carried out by auditors contracted by beneficiaries, which in some cases
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that the principal sources of error in this area are the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries´ cost declarations, the selection of ineligible projects, activities and beneficiaries and the infringement of public procurement and State aid rules; stresses the need to take steps immediately to reduce these sources of error;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes with
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that ineligible projects and activities carried out by ineligible providers are often selected; calls on the Member States to refrain from such practices;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Acknowledges that an evaluation of the second Health Programme (2008-2013) was finalised in 2015;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes with concern the persisting deficiencies in the quality of expenditure verifications carried out by auditors contracted by beneficiaries, which in some cases lead to the Commission's acceptance of ineligible costs and recognizes the need to improve grant supervision; underlines that delays were also identified in the validation, authorization and payment of expenditures by the Commission;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Is
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses that the overall budgetary cost to the European Union of tackling the migrant crisis is unacceptable and that it should be Europeans who benefit first and foremost from funds allocated to the EU's health policy;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is concerned by the lack of direct means of control in regard to the use of macro-financial assistance by recipient third countries; calls on the Commission to tie assistance of this kind more closely to measurable parameters;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Notes that the level of implementation in the Public Health programme 2014-2020 is
source: 595.418
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/13 |
|
committees/13 |
|
committees/14 |
|
committees/14 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/18 |
|
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0150&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0150_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0143New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0143_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/9 |
|
committees/9 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/13 |
|
committees/13 |
|
committees/14 |
|
committees/14 |
|
committees/15 |
|
committees/15 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/16 |
|
committees/17 |
|
committees/17 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/18 |
|
committees/19 |
|
committees/19 |
|
council |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
CONT/8/07174New
|
procedure/final/title |
Old
OJ L 252 29.09.2017, p. 0026New
OJ L 252 29.09.2017, p. 0026 |
procedure/final/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2017:252:TOCNew
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2017:252:TOC |
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
procedure/title |
Old
2015 discharge: EU general budget, European Commission and executive agenciesNew
2015 discharge: EU general budget, European Commission and executive agencies |
activities/7 |
|
procedure/final |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official JournalNew
Procedure completed |
activities/6/docs/0 |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Results of vote in Parliament |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
Old
CELEX:52016PC0475(01):ENNew
CELEX:52016DC0475:EN |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
Old
CELEX:52016DC0475:ENNew
CELEX:52016PC0475(01):EN |
activities/6/docs/0/text |
|
activities/6 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2017-04-27T00:00:00New
2016-07-11T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Non-legislative basic document published |
activities/5/docs |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/4/docs/0/text |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
activities/4 |
|
activities/5/date |
Old
2017-04-26T00:00:00New
2017-04-27T00:00:00 |
activities/5/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in plenary scheduled |
activities/3/committees |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/1/mepref |
Old
53ba82eab819f24b330001bcNew
4f1ac75eb819f25efd000082 |
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/1/name |
Old
VISTISEN Anders PrimdahlNew
CZARNECKI Ryszard |
activities/4 |
|
committees/4/shadows/1/mepref |
Old
53ba82eab819f24b330001bcNew
4f1ac75eb819f25efd000082 |
committees/4/shadows/1/name |
Old
VISTISEN Anders PrimdahlNew
CZARNECKI Ryszard |
activities/3/date |
Old
2017-03-22T00:00:00New
2017-03-23T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016DC0475:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016DC0475:EN
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/0/commission/0/DG/url |
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/New
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/budget_en |
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/6/mepref |
Old
53b2d70eb819f205b0000008New
53b2db70b819f205b000008a |
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/6/name |
Old
ALIOT LouisNew
JALKH Jean-François |
committees/4/shadows/6/mepref |
Old
53b2d70eb819f205b0000008New
53b2db70b819f205b000008a |
committees/4/shadows/6/name |
Old
ALIOT LouisNew
JALKH Jean-François |
other/0/dg/url |
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/New
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/budget_en |
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/1 |
|
committees/4/shadows/1 |
|
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/1 |
|
committees/4/shadows/1 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/2/committees |
|
activities/2/date |
Old
2016-10-04T00:00:00New
2017-03-22T00:00:00 |
activities/2/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
committees/1/date |
2016-09-08T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
committees/4/shadows/1 |
|
committees/4/shadows/2 |
|
committees/4/shadows/3 |
|
committees/4/shadows/4 |
|
committees/4/shadows/5 |
|
committees/4/shadows/6 |
|
committees/10/date |
2016-10-11T00:00:00
|
committees/10/rapporteur |
|
committees/15/date |
2016-10-12T00:00:00
|
committees/15/rapporteur |
|
committees/16/date |
2016-10-11T00:00:00
|
committees/16/rapporteur |
|
committees/18/date |
2016-09-08T00:00:00
|
committees/18/rapporteur |
|
activities/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
CONT/8/07174
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
committees/8/date |
2016-09-09T00:00:00
|
committees/8/rapporteur |
|
committees/2/date |
2016-09-14T00:00:00
|
committees/2/rapporteur |
|
committees/19/date |
2016-09-14T00:00:00
|
committees/19/rapporteur |
|
committees/5/date |
2016-09-05T00:00:00
|
committees/5/rapporteur |
|
committees/6/date |
2016-09-07T00:00:00
|
committees/6/rapporteur |
|
committees/9/date |
2016-08-31T00:00:00
|
committees/9/rapporteur |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|