Progress: Procedure completed
Lead committee dossier:
Subjects
Events
The European Parliament decided by 449 votes to 152, with 26 abstentions, to grant the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017, 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 2017.
Budget, programming periods and political priorities
In 2017, the Union budget was in the fourth year of implementation of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), and amounted to EUR 159.8 billion, including six amending budgets, and that the allocations in different areas were:
EUR 75.4 billion for smart and inclusive growth; EUR 58.6 billion for support to the European agricultural sector; EUR 4.3 billion for reinforcing the external borders of the Union and addressing the refugee crisis and irregular migration; EUR 10.7 billion for activities outside the Union; EUR 9.4 billion for the administration of the Union institutions.
Parliament underlined that the Union budget supports the implementation of the Union policies and the achievement of their priorities and objectives. The resolution noted the achievement of the following results:
- Horizon 2020 provided EUR 8.5 billion of funding, which further mobilised direct additional investments, leading to a total of EUR 10.6 billion and funding to 5 000 projects;
- by the end of 2017, COSME provided financing to more than 275 000 small and medium sized companies (of which 50 % were start-ups) in 25 countries that would otherwise have struggled to secure private financing due to their high risk profile;
- the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) supported the creation of over 7 000 additional places in reception centres; the number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors, an especially vulnerable migrant group, also increased from only 183 places in 2014 to 17 070 places in 2017; by the end of 2017, 1 432 612 third-country nationals had received integration assistance;
- the EU provided more than EUR 2.2 billion in humanitarian aid in 80 different countries; EU humanitarian funding supported the education of over 4.7 million children caught up in emergencies in over 50 countries;
I. The Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance (DAS)
Accounts and legality and regularity of revenue
Parliament welcomed the fact that the Court gave a clean opinion on the reliability of the accounts of the European Union for 2017, as it has done since 2007. However, it noted that for 2017, the Court has issued for a second consecutive year a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the payments underlying the accounts, which according to the Court, indicates that a significant part of the 2017 expenditure audited by it was not materially affected by error and that the level of irregularities in EU spending has continued to decrease.
Members welcomed the positive trend of a continuing decrease in the most likely error rate for payments determined by the Court in recent years, reaching an all-time low level of 2.4% in 2017, which, regrettably, is still above the threshold of 2%.
Revenue
In 2017, the Union had own resources of EUR 115.4 billion and other revenue of 17.2 billion, and that the surplus carried over from 2016 was EUR 6.4 billion. Parliament noted with satisfaction the Court’s conclusion that in 2017 revenue was free from material error and that the revenue-related systems examined by the Court were, overall, effective, but that some controls for Traditional Own Resources (TOR) were only partially effective.
The Court stated that there is necessity for improvement in the Commission’s actions to safeguard Union revenue in order to address weaknesses in its management of the risk of under-valued imports in relation to TOR and in its verifications on the VAT-based own resource. These weaknesses may affect the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget.
Budgetary and financial management
In 2017, 99.3 % of the amount available for commitments was implemented (EUR 158.7 billion), but stresses that the executed payments were only EUR 124.7 billion, mainly due to Member States submitting fewer claims than anticipated for the multiannual programmes of the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), as well as to the late adoption of the MFF and sectoral legislation.
Members expressed concern that in 2017 the combination of high commitments and low payments increased outstanding budgetary commitments to a new record of EUR 267.3 billion (2016: EUR 238.8 billion) and that the Court projections indicate this amount will rise even more by the end of the current MFF, which may lead to a significantly increased risk of insufficient payment appropriations, but also to a risk of errors under the pressure for a swift absorption given a potential loss of Union funding. The EU budget is not allowed to run a deficit and that the growing payments backlog in fact represents a financial debt.
The Commission is called on to improve the accuracy of the payment forecast and to use the lessons learned from the previous programming period in order to deal with the accumulated backlog in payments and avoid its negative effect on the next MFF and to present the Action Plan on reducing the payments backlog during the 2021 - 2027 multiannual financial framework.
Again, Members called for the addition of a budget line in future budgets of the Union dedicated to tourism in order to ensure transparency regarding the Union funds used to support actions for tourism.
II. Budgetary implementation by policy area
Members discussed budgetary implementation and made the following observations:
Economic, social and territorial cohesion
The Court identified and quantified 36 errors in its sample of 217 transactions for 2017, which audit authorities in Member States had not detected, and that the number and the impact of these errors indicate persisting weaknesses with the regularity of the expenditure declared by managing authorities. The Commission should work even closer with the managing and audit authorities of individual Member States on detecting these errors and specifically targeting the most frequent ones.
Members are worried about the lack of transparency in spending for financial instruments as four times more money is available for financial instruments under the current MFF.
Security and citizenship
The 2014-2020 allocated resources for AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) increased from EUR 2 752 million to EUR 5 391.5 million by the end of 2017 and that between 2014 and 2017, the number of target group persons provided with assistance (in reception and asylum systems) increased from 148 045 to 297 083, and that of these, the share of persons having benefited from legal assistance has risen from 18 395 (12.4 %) to 56 933 (19.1 %).
Members called on the Commission to define and put in place a balanced and comprehensive migration policy based on the principles of solidarity and partnership instead of considering the migration policy as a crisis management issue. They are also concerned that there is a risk that EU money foreseen for development is used for other purposes such as to fight irregular migration or military action.
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
In 2017, the LIFE Programme celebrated its 25th anniversary. The programme provided EUR 222 million to co-finance 139 new projects. Further efforts need to be made to lower payments delays under the LIFE Programme, as 5.8 % of payments exceeded legal deadlines in 2017 (3.9 % in 2016, 12 % in 2015).
Administration
Parliament is not satisfied by the Commission’s reactions to the media’s and general public’s valid concerns on the procedure immediately after the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission took place. It called on the Commission, as well as on all European institutions to review, where necessary, nomination procedures, in particular for senior officials and where relevant for cabinet members, and to take additional measures to improve transparency, fairness and equal opportunity during appointment procedures. The Commission is called on to report back to the European Parliament by 31 August 2019 on the progress made.
Members requested the immediate resignation of the Secretary General and the opening of a fair, fully transparent and open competition for this post.
Recommendations for the future
Parliament called on the Commission, for management and reporting purposes, to establish a way of recording Union budgetary expenditure that will make it possible to report on all funding related to the refugee and migration crisis, as well as for the future Union policy on management of migration flows and integration.
The Commission should also make better use of its own performance information and develop an internal culture more focused on performance.
Lastly, Parliament stressed that women’s rights and gender equality should be integrated and ensured into all policy areas.
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) 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 2017, 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 2017.
The committee recommended that Parliament close the accounts of the general budget of the Union for 2017.
Budget, programming periods and political priorities
In 2017, the Union budget was in the fourth year of implementation of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), and amounted to EUR 159.8 billion, including six amending budgets, and that the allocations in different areas were:
EUR 75.4 billion for smart and inclusive growth; EUR 58.6 billion for support to the European agricultural sector; EUR 4.3 billion for reinforcing the external borders of the Union and addressing the refugee crisis and irregular migration; EUR 10.7 billion for activities outside the Union; EUR 9.4 billion for the administration of the Union institutions.
Member underlined that the Union budget supports the implementation of the Union policies and the achievement of their priorities and objectives. The report noted the achievement of the following results:
- Horizon 2020 provided EUR 8.5 billion of funding, which further mobilised direct additional investments, leading to a total of EUR 10.6 billion and funding to 5 000 projects;
- by the end of 2017, COSME provided financing to more than 275 000 small and medium sized companies (of which 50 % were start-ups) in 25 countries that would otherwise have struggled to secure private financing due to their high risk profile;
- the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) supported the creation of over 7 000 additional places in reception centres; the number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors, an especially vulnerable migrant group, also increased from only 183 places in 2014 to 17 070 places in 2017; by the end of 2017, 1 432 612 third-country nationals had received integration assistance;
- the EU provided more than EUR 2.2 billion in humanitarian aid in 80 different countries; EU humanitarian funding supported the education of over 4.7 million children caught up in emergencies in over 50 countries;
I. The Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance (DAS)
Accounts and legality and regularity of revenue
Members welcomed the fact that the Court gave a clean opinion on the reliability of the accounts of the European Union for 2017, as it has done since 2007. However, Members noted that for 2017, the Court has issued for a second consecutive year a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the payments underlying the accounts, which according to the Court, indicates that a significant part of the 2017 expenditure audited by it was not materially affected by error and that the level of irregularities in EU spending has continued to decrease.
They welcomed the positive trend of a continuing decrease in the most likely error rate for payments determined by the Court in recent years, reaching an all-time low level of 2.4% in 2017, which, regrettably, is still above the threshold of 2%.
Revenue
Members noted that in 2017, the Union had own resources of EUR 115.4 billion and other revenue of 17.2 billion, and that the surplus carried over from 2016 was EUR 6.4 billion. They noted with satisfaction the Court’s conclusion that in 2017 revenue was free from material error and that the revenue-related systems examined by the Court were, overall, effective, but that some controls for Traditional Own Resources (TOR) were only partially effective.
The Court stated that there is necessity for improvement in the Commission’s actions to safeguard Union revenue in order to address weaknesses in its management of the risk of under-valued imports in relation to TOR and in its verifications on the VAT-based own resource. These weaknesses may affect the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget.
Budgetary and financial management
In 2017, 99.3 % of the amount available for commitments was implemented (EUR 158.7 billion), but stresses that the executed payments were only EUR 124.7 billion, mainly due to Member States submitting fewer claims than anticipated for the multiannual programmes of the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), as well as to the late adoption of the MFF and sectoral legislation.
Members expressed concern that in 2017 the combination of high commitments and low payments increased outstanding budgetary commitments to a new record of EUR 267.3 billion (2016: EUR 238.8 billion) and that the Court projections indicate this amount will rise even more by the end of the current MFF, which may lead to a significantly increased risk of insufficient payment appropriations, but also to a risk of errors under the pressure for a swift absorption given a potential loss of Union funding. The EU budget is not allowed to run a deficit and that the growing payments backlog in fact represents a financial debt.
The Commission is called on to improve the accuracy of the payment forecast and to use the lessons learned from the previous programming period in order to deal with the accumulated backlog in payments and avoid its negative effect on the next MFF and to present the Action Plan on reducing the payments backlog during the 2021 - 2027 multiannual financial framework.
Again, Members called for the addition of a budget line in future budgets of the Union dedicated to tourism in order to ensure transparency regarding the Union funds used to support actions for tourism.
II. Budgetary implementation by policy area
Members discussed budgetary implementation and made the following observations:
Economic, social and territorial cohesion
The Court identified and quantified 36 errors in its sample of 217 transactions for 2017, which audit authorities in Member States had not detected, and that the number and the impact of these errors indicate persisting weaknesses with the regularity of the expenditure declared by managing authorities. The Commission should work even closer with the managing and audit authorities of individual Member States on detecting these errors and specifically targeting the most frequent ones.
Members are worried about the lack of transparency in spending for financial instruments as four times more money is available for financial instruments under the current MFF.
Security and citizenship
The 2014-2020 allocated resources for AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) increased from EUR 2 752 million to EUR 5 391.5 million by the end of 2017 and that between 2014 and 2017, the number of target group persons provided with assistance (in reception and asylum systems) increased from 148 045 to 297 083, and that of these, the share of persons having benefited from legal assistance has risen from 18 395 (12.4 %) to 56 933 (19.1 %).
Members called on the Commission to define and put in place a balanced and comprehensive migration policy based on the principles of solidarity and partnership instead of considering the migration policy as a crisis management issue. They are also concerned that there is a risk that EU money foreseen for development is used for other purposes such as to fight irregular migration or military action.
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
In 2017, the LIFE Programme celebrated its 25th anniversary. The programme provided EUR 222 million to co-finance 139 new projects. Further efforts need to be made to lower payments delays under the LIFE Programme, as 5.8 % of payments exceeded legal deadlines in 2017 (3.9 % in 2016, 12 % in 2015).
The Council approved a draft recommendation on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017.
According to the revenue and expenditure account for the 2017 financial year:
- the revenue for the financial year amounted to EUR 139 691 411 177.11
- expenditure disbursed from appropriations for the financial year amounted to EUR 135 763 957 598.31
- cancelled payment appropriations (including earmarked revenue) carried over from year n-1 amounted to EUR 1 409 873 556.99
- the appropriations for payments carried over to year n+1 amounted to EUR 1 792 466 135.54
- the EFTA payment appropriations carried over from year n-1 amounted to EUR 3 504 182.26
- the balance of exchange-rate differences amounted to EUR -166 431 469.32
- the positive budgetary balance amounted to EUR 555 542 325.09.
Based on the observations contained in the report by the Court of Auditors, the Council called on the European Parliament to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of its budget implementation for the financial year 2017.
However, it considered that budget implementation required a series of comments from the Council which should be fully taken into account by the Commission.
Statement of assurance
The Council welcomed the significant decrease of the estimated level of error reported by the Court (from 3.8 % in 2015 and 3.1 % in 2016 to 2.4 % in 2017) but regretted that the estimated level of error is still above the materiality threshold of 2 %.
The Council welcomed the fact that for the second year in a row the Court gives a qualified opinion, rather than an adverse one, on the legality and regularity of payments and took note of the fact that the entitlement-based payments, which constitute the majority of EU budget spending, are free from material error and that the material error was mainly confined to the reimbursement-based spending. It also welcomed the improvement in the estimated level of error for reimbursement-based payments (from 4.8 % in 2016 to 3.7 % in 2017).
The Council appreciated previous efforts and actions undertaken by the Commission and the Member States to implement the Court's recommendations and encouraged the Member States and the Commission to continue these efforts. In addition, it encouraged further simplification of funding rules and implementation procedures in the Member States, expecting that these measures will have a positive impact on the estimated level of error.
Financial and budgetary management
Taking note of the significant level of outstanding budgetary commitments (RAL) reached in 2017, the Council called on the Commission to continuously improve both payment estimates and monitoring mechanisms in order to manage this risk.
The Commission is called on to: (i) provide an overview of the total value of contingent liabilities, together with an analysis of their possible impact on the budget and of the way risk-exposure can be mitigated; (ii) provide more information about the situation of financial instruments for the 2007-2013 programming period. The Council urged the Member States and the Commission to intensify their efforts to accelerate the implementation of the available resources from the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds.
Getting results from the budget
The Council welcomed the increased focus on performance in the internal culture of the Commission. It aligned itself with the Court's recommendation addressed to the Commission on the need to include up-to-date performance information in performance reporting on progress made towards achieving targets and to streamline indicators on the performance of the EU budget, focusing only on indicators relevant for measuring results directly attributable to activities financed by the budget.
Revenue
The Council noted with satisfaction that in 2017 the revenue part of the budget was not affected by material error. It supports the Court's recommendations made to the Commission: (i) to improve by the end of 2020 its monitoring of import flows and to act promptly to ensure that due amounts of TOR are made available; (ii) to improve, by the end of 2019, the existing control framework and better document its application on the verification of Member States' calculations of the Weighted Average Rate.
Competitiveness for growth and jobs
The Council regretted that the estimated level of error (4.2% in 2017 and 4.1 % in 2016) remains significantly above 2 % and urged the Commission to continue its efforts to reach an error rate below the materiality threshold.
The Commission is called on to continue its efforts to address the causes of error with a particular focus on the programmes subject to persistently high error levels and to strengthen its efforts to fully implement the measures already taken in this respect.
The root causes for most errors are the misinterpretation of complex eligibility rules, in particular under the research and innovation programmes and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).
The Council recommended: (i) extend simplifications introduced for the Horizon 2020 programme; (ii) reinforce communication and intensify its efforts towards providing beneficiaries with proper guidance on eligibility issues; (iii) swiftly finalise its actions to address the weaknesses identified by its Internal Audit Service (IAS) in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency's (EACEA) Erasmus+ grant management procedure.
Economic, social and territorial cohesion
The estimated level of error reported by the Court for payments has decreased for the fourth year in a row to 3.0% in 2017. The Council regretted, however, that the estimated level of error remains above the materiality threshold of 2 %. The amount of audited expenditure was EUR 8.0 billion in 2017, significantly lower than in previous years.
The Council called for additional efforts from managing authorities and the Commission to tackle the problem of weaknesses related to the regularity of the expenditure. It urged the Commission to improve its annual activity reports and in this context also refers to the Court's observation on the necessity to have reliable residual error rates reported by audit authorities and information available that refers exclusively to eligible expenditure at closure (i.e. without advances).
Lastly, the Council noted with concern that many performance measurement systems lack result indicators at project level, which makes it difficult to assess a project's overall contribution to specific operational programme objectives.
Natural resources
The Council welcomed the fact that the estimated level of error reported by the Court for payments under this policy area has steadily decreased in the last years (3.6 % in 2014, 2.9 % in 2015, 2.5 % in 2016 and 2.4% in 2017). However, it regretted that the estimated level of error remains above the materiality threshold of 2 % in particular as regards rural development, environment, climate action and fisheries.
The Council noted that the Court and the Commission acknowledge that the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) makes a significant contribution to preventing and reducing the levels of error. It also noted the Court's finding that the paying agencies continued to accurately identify the eligible areas. It called upon the Member States to instruct their paying agencies to generalise the preliminary cross-checks on direct aid applications.
It welcomed the fact that the corrective measures applied by the Commission and the Member States when it considered that the work of a certification body was not reliable.
The Council advocated the gradual availability of the demand for geospatial support in all Member States for area payments and investment projects in the field of rural development. It invited the Commission to take into account in its guidance that Member States need clear rules to verify and evaluate simplified cost options (SCOs) and to clarify the roles of paying agencies and certification bodies in this respect.
Security and citizenship
The Council regretted that due to the relatively low level of payments in this policy area (around 2% of the EU total) the Court has not estimated an error rate.
Taking into account the increased payments of national programmes, in particular as regards the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF), the Council urged the Court to enhance its audit scope and approach to a representative sample in order to provide an error rate and performance information for the coming years.
Global Europe
The Council called on the Court to examine possibilities to resume providing for the coming years an estimated level of error that allows year-on-year comparison.
It welcomed the assessment of performance aspects with a review of output and results conducted by the Court in this policy area. It noted that all samples had clear and relevant performance indicators. It also welcomed the Court's recommendations, including on possible improvements to the Residual Error Rate studies, and called on the Commission to swiftly implement them effectively.
Administration
The Council welcomed the fact that the administrative and related expenditure of the EU institutions remained, as in previous years, free from material error with an estimated level of error of 0.5 %, which while being well below the materiality threshold is higher by 0.3 percentage points compared to the Court's findings for 2016 (0.2 %). It also noted with satisfaction that no serious weaknesses were identified by the Court in the supervisory and control systems and in the examined annual activity reports.
As in previous years, there is a small number of errors relating to staff costs and some weaknesses in the Office for Administration and Payment of individual entitlements' (PMO) management of family allowances. The Council called on the Commission to improve its procedures to avoid errors related to staff expenditure.
The Council approved the Council recommendations on the discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the 2017 financial year, namely:
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency for Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for Innovation and Networks Research Executive Agency European Research Council Executive Agency
Having examining the revenue and expenditure accounts for the financial year 2017 and the balance sheets of all the executive agencies and the Court of Auditors' report on the agencies' annual accounts, together with their respective replies, the Council recommended that the European Parliament give discharge to the director of each of the agencies concerned in respect of the implementation of their respective budgets for 2017.
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 as such call into question the granting of discharge.
In general, the Council encourages all agencies:
- to take appropriate measures, mainly to ensure the independence of the accounting officer in order to remedy the shortcomings identified by the Court in their accounting environment;
- to improve their public procurement and staff recruitment procedures and to ensure, without undue delay, the full implementation of an electronic public procurement system.
In particular, the Council invited the Executive Agency for Consumer Affairs, Health, Agriculture and Food:
- to take appropriate measures to ensure the legality and regularity of the recruitment process and the equal treatment of candidates;
- to continue improving its financial programming and monitoring of the budget implementation in order to reduce the unjustified level of commitments carried over and the amounts cancelled at the end of the following year to the strict minimum, in line with the budgetary principle of annuality.
PURPOSE: presentation of a report on the internal audits carried out in 2017 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 the Financial Regulation. It is based on the report drawn up by the Commission’s Internal Auditor, regarding Internal Audit Service audit and consulting reports completed in 2017 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 2017 - 31 January 2018 are included in this report. Recommendations implemented after the cut-off date of 31 January 2018 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.
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 2017 audit plan
By the cut-off date of 31 January 2018, the implementation of the updated 2017 audit plan reached 98%6 of planned engagements for audits in the Commission, Services and Executive Agencies.
148 engagements (including audits, follow-ups, reviews and consulting assignments) were finalised.
The 2017 initial plan contained 66 audit engagements which were planned to be finalised by the cut-off date of 31 January 2018. Furthermore, the plan contained 38 engagements which were planned to start before this cut-off date and to be finalised in 2018. The 2017 plan was updated at mid-year.
Overall, the IAS considers that the state of play regarding the implementation of audit recommendations is satisfactory and comparable to previous reporting periods. It indicates that the Commission services are diligent in implementing the very important recommendations, hence mitigating the risks identified. Nevertheless, attention has to be paid to the individual recommendations rated very important which are long overdue, i.e. more than six months. A dedicated report was established and sent to the Audit Progress Committee, a summary of which is provided in the Staff Working Document to this report.
Methodology
In response to the Commission’s move towards a 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 2017 as part of its 2016-2018 strategic audit plan.
These audits addressed a number of aspects including governance processes, human resources management, IT processes. In addition, other audits in various areas showed that further actions are necessary to increase the overall performance of the audited processes such as:
- the cost effectiveness of controls when setting up the internal control systems in DGs and need to report on the cost-effectiveness of controls in their Annual Activity Reports while the Commission needs to estimate the costs and benefits of control systems when revising or presenting new spending proposals;
- the improved management of agricultural markets, including market crises and drawing lessons from crisis situations in terms of risk management and the follow-up of the crisis measures;
- there are significant weaknesses that need to be addressed notably on the efficiency and effectiveness of complaints handling and the enforcement of EU environmental law;
- there are significant weakness in the implementation regarding the monitoring of the execution of scientific projects;
- the European Anti-Fraud Office staff’s awareness on how to deal with social media and interest representatives needs to be significantly improved.
Overall opinion
The implementation of action plans drawn up in response to Internal Audit Service 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 systems which had not been audited by the Internal Audit Service in the past three years.
Particular attention, which led to reservations in the annual activity report of the Directorate-General concerned, was drawn in the limited conclusions of: (i) the DG CLIMA with regard to the delay observed in the implementation of one very important IT security related recommendation (on the management of the security of the EU Emissions Trading IT system), which exposes the DG to the risk of security breaches; (ii) the DG DEVCO with regard to the delay observed in the implementation of one very important recommendation issued in the context of the audit on the management of the African Peace Facility; (iii) the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency with regard to one critical and a number of very important recommendations issued in the context of the audit on Erasmus+ and Creative Europe – grant management phase 1;
- on the Commission's financial management : as in the previous editions,
the 2017 overall opinion is qualified with regard to the reservations made in the Authorising Officers' by Delegation Declarations of Assurance. Given the magnitude of financial corrections and recoveries of the past and assuming that corrections in future years 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 one ‘emphasis of matter’ which relates to the supervision strategies regarding third parties implementing policies and programmes.
This report summarises the Commission's response to the main requests made by the European Parliament and the Council in the context of the 2016 discharge and forms part of the integrated financial reporting package for the 2017 financial year.
The priorities set out by the European Parliament are to a quite large extent reflected in the Commission's proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 which is based on the following principles:
a stronger focus on European added value; a more streamlined and transparent budget; less red tape for beneficiaries; a more flexible, agile budget; a budget that performs.
The monitoring report focuses in particular on the following aspects:
Political priorities : the new proposals bring the structure and the programmes of the EU budget fully into line with the positive agenda of the Union post-2020 as agreed by the Leaders of the 27 Member States in Bratislava and Rome. In this context performance is put at the core of the EU budget:
the new architecture of the future Multiannual Financial Framework provides greater transparency on what the EU budget is for and how the different parts of the budget will contribute and also provides the flexibility necessary to respond to evolving needs; the EU budget will invest even more in areas where one single Member State cannot act alone or where it is more efficient to act together such as research, migration, border control or defence, whilst continuing to finance traditional, but modernised policies, such as Common Agricultural Policy and Cohesion Policy ; in order to further simplify rules , the Commission proposes to make rules more coherent on the basis of a common rulebook; this will reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and managing authorities while maintaining a high level of assurance of legality and regularity; the Commission's proposals will lead to tighter financial management and, combined with the possibility of phasing 2014-2020 projects, a quick start of the programming period; it is proposed to set a more ambitious goal for climate mainstreaming across all EU programmes, with a target of 25% of EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives; a closer link is established with the European Semester of economic policy coordination with regard to the objectives of the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund.
Budgetary and financial management : the proposed Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027:
specifies clearly that both commitments and payments appropriations mobilised for special instruments shall be entered in the budget over and above the relevant MFF ceilings; proposes, where appropriate, to widen the scope of the instruments, for instance by allowing the activation of the Emergency Aid Reserve for emergencies inside the EU; proposes to make the budget more agile by removing the constraints on built-in multiannual financial framework flexibility as well as to increase the size of the flexibility instrument to EUR 1 billion (in 2018 prices) per year; provides for increased flexibility within and between programmes, strengthening tools such as the Global Margin for Payments and the Contingency Margin as well as creating a new Union Reserve to tackle unforeseen events and to respond to emergencies in areas such as security and migration.
On the call to assist Member States, which encounter difficulties with timely and smooth absorption of available EU funding, the Commission has already taken a number of initiatives to assist Member States with timely absorption.
Performance : in the Commission's proposals, the performance framework for future programmes is significantly streamlined. The Commission's proposals include provisions to set-up monitoring and evaluation frameworks, including indicators for the purpose of evaluations.
Under the EU budget focused on results initiative, a specific EU results website has been developed. The aim is to communicate concrete results of projects financed from the EU budget as well as their geographic location.
Revenue : the Commission is closely monitoring the recovery of EU own resources not collected by the UK authorities on textile and footwear products imported from China.
The European Parliament invited the Commission to analyse, in cooperation with the Member States, all the potential implications of multiannual activities on the estimation of GNI and to confirm, during the GNI verification cycle, that research and development assets have been correctly recorded in the Member States’ national accounts. This issue is currently being addressed by the Commission.
Inclusion of the European Development Fund in the general budget : following the reiterated European Parliament request to include the European Development Fund in the general EU budget, the Commission is proposing in the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027 a strategic simplification of the financing instruments in EU external action, including the integration of the European Development Fund in the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument.
Speeding up the discharge procedure : the objective is to adopt a discharge decision for financial year N in year N+1 while ensuring high data quality and sound financial management. The Commission is committed to do its utmost to find the best way forward towards a shorter discharge procedure.
PURPOSE: presentation of the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2017.
CONTENT: the Court of Auditors published its 41 st annual report on the implementation of the general budget of the Union for the year 2017.
Statement of assurance (DAS)
For 2017, the Court expresses a qualified opinion on the regularity of the transactions underlying the 2017 accounts. The expenditure recorded in 2017 covering spending on a reimbursement basis is materially affected by error. The estimated level of error for payments made on a reimbursement basis is 3.7%. The overall estimated level of error (2.4%) is still above the materiality threshold. Payments made on an entitlement basis are not affected by a material level of error.
The Court concludes that payments for 2017 are legal and regular, with the expenditure recorded in 2017 covering spending on a reimbursement basis. It believes that the EU accounts present a true and fair view of the EU’s financial position.
Brexit
The report also assessed the potential impact on the 2017 accounts of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom (UK) formally notified the European Council of its intention to leave the European Union (EU). On 22 May 2017, the negotiations started for the withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK.
Part Five (Financial Provisions) of the draft withdrawal agreement of 19 March 2018 concerning the financial settlement states that the UK will pay all its obligations under the current and previous Multiannual Financial Frameworks as if it were still a Member State.
Based on this, the Court concluded that the accounts as at 31 December 2017 correctly reflect the withdrawal process.
Main observations of the Court of Auditors in relation to the 2017 DAS
Corrective measures
The Commission and the Member State authorities had applied corrective measures that directly affected 16 of the transactions sampled. These measures reduced the estimated level of error by 1.1%. Had the national authorities made proper use of all the information at their disposal, the estimated level of error for this chapter would have been 0.9% lower.
Fraud
In 2017, the Court found 13 instances of suspected fraud in the 703 transactions that it audited for the statement of assurance and for other performance and/or compliance audits (2016: 11). These cases were forwarded to OLAF, along with six other cases brought to attention by the public. The instances of suspected fraud concerned the artificial creation of the necessary conditions for EU financing, the declaration of costs not meeting the eligibility criteria and procurement irregularities.
Budgetary and financial management: the main risk and challenges for the future budgets
In 2017, the EU committed EUR 158.7 billion (99.3%) of the total commitment appropriations of EUR 159.8 billion available in the adopted budget. Taking into account the special instruments, amounts committed exceeded the MFF ceiling by 3.1 billion.
As in 2016, total payments in 2017 were much lower than anticipated. They were EUR 18.2 billion below the ceiling set in the MFF. In anticipation of lower payments, the budgetary authority set the initial 2017 budget at EUR 134.5 billion, EUR 8.4 billion below the MFF ceiling for payment appropriations of EUR 142.9 billion. The low level of payments was mainly due to lower than anticipated claims being submitted by the Member States for the multiannual programmes of the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment (ESI) funds.
The Court noted that in 2018-2020, the risk that available payment appropriations will be insufficient to settle all payment claims will increase significantly. A more accurate payment forecast for the future years would help to manage this risk.
Absorption rates
By end of 2017, the overall average absorption rate for the 2014-2020 MFF was even lower than in the corresponding year of the previous MFF (2010: 22 %). This was mainly due to the later closure of the previous MFF, the late adoption of legal acts, difficulties in implementing the new requirements for the current MFF and the administrative burden linked to overlaps between MFF periods.
Abnormal backlog of unpaid claims
There remains a risk of an abnormal payments backlog until 2020. Payments should gradually increase between 2018 and 2020, as payment claims are likely to rise substantially. There remains a risk of an abnormal payments backlog developing.
Outstanding commitments from 2014-2020 MFF
Payment appropriations in the next MFF will need to cover outstanding commitments from the 2014-2020 MFF and new programmes of the next MFF. Another possibility is to reduce commitment appropriations for programmes under the next MFF.
By the end of 2017, the Commission had not yet produced a comprehensive, long-term projection that fully complies with the Interinstitutional Agreement.
Analysis of budgetary implementation for the main MFF headings
- Competitiveness for growth and jobs
Expenditure of EUR 14.9 billion was subject to audit in this area. Most spending took the form of grants to public or private beneficiaries participating in projects. Research and innovation expenditure, which accounted for 53 % of spending under this sub-heading in 2017, is made through the seventh framework programme for research and technological development 2007-2013 (FP7) and Horizon 2020, the framework programme for 2014-2020.
The overall audit evidence indicates that the level of error in spending on ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ was material.
The Court recommended: (i) clarifying the eligibility rules for Horizon 2020 on personnel costs; (ii) improving the level of awareness among beneficiaries of the eligibility rules for the CEF, in particular by drawing a clear distinction between an implementation contract and a subcontract; (iii) addressing the weaknesses identified by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency’s Erasmus + grant management process and in the monitoring of research and innovation projects.
- Economic, social and territorial cohesion
Expenditure of just EUR 8.0 billion was subject to audit in this area. This was due to the low level of accepted expenditure; the figure is likely to increase substantially for 2018. Expenditure is affected by material error. Around 90 % of expenditure is reimbursement-based, and the errors here essentially reflect different categories of ineligible costs (in particular personnel and other costs, ineligible projects and beneficiaries ).
The Court recommends that the Commission: (i) ensure that the audit arrangements for financial instruments managed by the EIF are adequate at the level of financial intermediaries; (ii) propose legislative changes for the post-2020 financial framework to exclude the reimbursement of VAT to public bodies from EU funds; (iii) address the complexity of the information presented on the 2014-2020 control and assurance framework in the AARs of DG REGIO and DG EMPL.
- Natural resources
Expenditure of EUR 56.5 billion was subject to audit in this area. As a whole, this area is materially affected by error. However, direct payments from the EAGF account for around three quarters of expenditure in this area and are free from material error. Direct payments to farmers are entitlement-based and have benefited from simplified land eligibility rules and an effective ex-ante control system (IACS) that allows automated cross-checks between databases.
The Court continue to find a persistently high level of error in the other spending areas (rural development, EAGF market measures, environment, climate action and fisheries). Expenditure in these areas is mostly disbursed through reimbursement of costs. Ineligible beneficiaries, activities, projects or expenditure contribute around two thirds of the estimated level of error for this MFF heading.
The Court recommends assessing the effectiveness of the Member States’ actions to address the causes of errors for payments for market measures and rural development, and issue further guidance where necessary.
- Security and citizenship
Expenditure of EUR 2.7 billion was subject to audit in this area. This amount covered border protection, immigration and asylum policy, justice and home affairs, public health, consumer protection, culture, youth, information and dialogue with citizens. It is a relatively small but increasing share of the EU budget (approximately 2 % in 2017).
- Global Europe
Expenditure of EUR 8.2 billion was subject to audit in this area, with spending disbursed across more than 150 countries. Given the small size of the sample, the Court was not in a position to calculate a representative error rate for ‘Global Europe’ as it has for other spending areas.
- Administration
This area is free from material error. In 2017, expenditure of EUR 9.7 billion by the EU institutions and other bodies was subject to audit. This amount comprised spending on human resources (about 60 % of the total), buildings, equipment, energy, communications and information technology.
PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2017, as part of the 2017 discharge procedure.
Analysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions: European Commission .
CONTENT: the organisational governance of the EU consists of institutions, agencies and other EU bodies whose expenditure is included in the general budget of the Union.
This Commission document concerns the EU's consolidated accounts for the year 2017 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 is the responsibility of the Commission's Accounting Officer to prepare the EU's consolidated annual accounts and ensure that they present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position, the result of the operations and the cash flows of the EU institutions and bodies with a view to granting discharge.
Discharge procedure : the final step of a budget lifecycle is the discharge . It is the decision by which the European Parliament ‘ releases ’ the Commission from its responsibility for management of a given budget by marking the end of that budget's existence. It is granted by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.
The decision is based in particular on the European Court of Auditors reports, in particular its annual report, in which the Court provides a Statement of Assurance (DAS) on the legality and regularity of transactions (payments and commitments).
The procedure results in the granting, postponement or refusal of discharge.
The final discharge report including specific recommendations to the Commission for action is adopted in plenary by the European Parliament and are subject to an annual follow up report in which the Commission outlines the concrete actions it has taken to implement the recommendations made.
All EU institutions and other agencies, bodies and joint undertakings are subject to their own discharge procedures.
Budget implementation in 2017 : the adopted budget focused on two main policy priorities for Europe: (i) supporting the ongoing recovery of the European economy and (ii) tackling the migration and refugee crisis. On the one hand, it has ensured the implementation of ongoing programmes and, on the other hand, it has provided financial support to address new challenges.
In the context of the implementation of the 2017 EU budget, total commitment appropriations amounted to EUR 171.1 billion and payment appropriations to EUR 137.4 billion.
The main highlights of 2017 are as follows:
nearly half of the funds – EUR 83.2 billion in commitments – stimulated growth, employment and competitiveness . This included funding for research and innovation under Horizon 2020, for education under Erasmus+, for small and medium sized enterprises under the COSME programme, and for infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Moreover, the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) provided for the implementation of the Investment Plan for Europe, and the convergence among Member States and among regions was fostered through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The EFSI guarantee fund reached EUR 3.5 billion at end 2017; EUR 54 billion was allocated to programmes aiming to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion , including the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Social Fund; the implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative , which was accelerated in 2017. By the end of 2017 the total eligible cost of operations selected for support reached nearly EUR 7 billion; EUR 1.2 billion mobilised under the EU Solidarity Fund , the highest sum ever provided in a single instalment, following the earthquakes of 2016 and 2017 in the Italian regions of Abruzzo, Lazio, Marche and Umbria; EUR 58.6 billion were devoted to the promotion of sustainable growth and the preservation of Europe's natural resources . Programmes included the pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of market support measures and rural development, fisheries, and activities in the fields of climate and environment under the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE); the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) promoted the efficient management of migration flows and the development of a common Union approach to asylum and migration. The total of payments executed in 2017 amounted to EUR 576.2 million, almost a double of the 2016 figure; lastly, the total budget contribution to climate mainstreaming estimated was at 20.3 % for 2017.
Main aspects of the financial situation in 2017 :
consolidated revenue fell to EUR 136.2 billion, a decrease of 7% compared to the previous year; consolidated expenditure fell to EUR 128.1 billion , a decrease of 11% compared to 2016, mainly due to the fact that ERDF and Cohesion Fund expenditure decreased by about 50%, or EUR 17.4 billion, due to fewer expenses incurred relating to the previous programming period (2007-2013); total assets amounted to EUR 166.2 billion, an increase of approximately 2%; pre-financing (excluding other advances to Member States and contributions to the Bêkou and Africa trust funds) on the EU balance sheet amounted to EUR 44.3 billion (2016: EUR 41.6 billion); the significance and volume of financial instruments financed by the EU budget under direct and indirect management increases from year to year. This use of the EU budget aims at maximising the impact of the funds available; as at 31 December 2017, the total liabilities were EUR 236.5 billion, reflecting an increase of approx. 1 % when compared to the previous year; total financial corrections and confirmed recoveries amounted to EUR 2 662 million (2016: EUR 3 777 million), of which EUR 1 826 million resulted from corrective measures.
Implementation of appropriations : the 2017 implementation for all types of appropriations (budget, carry-overs from 2017 and assigned revenue) was 97 % for commitments and 93.9 % for payments . Appropriations from the budget were fully implemented in 2017 (98.35 % in payments), a good achievement given the uncertainties which prevailed in 2016 and most of 2017.
For the sub-heading 1b Economic, social and territorial cohesion, the financial implementation of 20142020 programmes progressed significantly compared to 2016, while the first closure payments were made for the 2007-2013 programmes. In heading 2 Sustainable Growth: Natural Resources, the financial implementation of the new EAFRD programmes also increased compared to 2016.
Outstanding commitments (RAL, committed amounts not yet paid for) stood at EUR 267 billion at the end of 2017. The increase of over EUR 28 billion in comparison with the end of 2016 was larger than expected. In 2018, a further increase of RAL is expected as a result of the difference between budgeted commitment and payment appropriations. However, this increase should be significantly lower than in 2017.
PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2017, as part of the 2017 discharge procedure.
Analysis of the accounts of the EU Institutions: European Commission .
CONTENT: the organisational governance of the EU consists of institutions, agencies and other EU bodies whose expenditure is included in the general budget of the Union.
This Commission document concerns the EU's consolidated accounts for the year 2017 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 is the responsibility of the Commission's Accounting Officer to prepare the EU's consolidated annual accounts and ensure that they present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position, the result of the operations and the cash flows of the EU institutions and bodies with a view to granting discharge.
Discharge procedure : the final step of a budget lifecycle is the discharge . It is the decision by which the European Parliament ‘ releases ’ the Commission from its responsibility for management of a given budget by marking the end of that budget's existence. It is granted by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.
The decision is based in particular on the European Court of Auditors reports, in particular its annual report, in which the Court provides a Statement of Assurance (DAS) on the legality and regularity of transactions (payments and commitments).
The procedure results in the granting, postponement or refusal of discharge.
The final discharge report including specific recommendations to the Commission for action is adopted in plenary by the European Parliament and are subject to an annual follow up report in which the Commission outlines the concrete actions it has taken to implement the recommendations made.
All EU institutions and other agencies, bodies and joint undertakings are subject to their own discharge procedures.
Budget implementation in 2017 : the adopted budget focused on two main policy priorities for Europe: (i) supporting the ongoing recovery of the European economy and (ii) tackling the migration and refugee crisis. On the one hand, it has ensured the implementation of ongoing programmes and, on the other hand, it has provided financial support to address new challenges.
In the context of the implementation of the 2017 EU budget, total commitment appropriations amounted to EUR 171.1 billion and payment appropriations to EUR 137.4 billion.
The main highlights of 2017 are as follows:
nearly half of the funds – EUR 83.2 billion in commitments – stimulated growth, employment and competitiveness . This included funding for research and innovation under Horizon 2020, for education under Erasmus+, for small and medium sized enterprises under the COSME programme, and for infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Moreover, the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) provided for the implementation of the Investment Plan for Europe, and the convergence among Member States and among regions was fostered through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The EFSI guarantee fund reached EUR 3.5 billion at end 2017; EUR 54 billion was allocated to programmes aiming to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion , including the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Social Fund; the implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative , which was accelerated in 2017. By the end of 2017 the total eligible cost of operations selected for support reached nearly EUR 7 billion; EUR 1.2 billion mobilised under the EU Solidarity Fund , the highest sum ever provided in a single instalment, following the earthquakes of 2016 and 2017 in the Italian regions of Abruzzo, Lazio, Marche and Umbria; EUR 58.6 billion were devoted to the promotion of sustainable growth and the preservation of Europe's natural resources . Programmes included the pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of market support measures and rural development, fisheries, and activities in the fields of climate and environment under the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE); the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) promoted the efficient management of migration flows and the development of a common Union approach to asylum and migration. The total of payments executed in 2017 amounted to EUR 576.2 million, almost a double of the 2016 figure; lastly, the total budget contribution to climate mainstreaming estimated was at 20.3 % for 2017.
Main aspects of the financial situation in 2017 :
consolidated revenue fell to EUR 136.2 billion, a decrease of 7% compared to the previous year; consolidated expenditure fell to EUR 128.1 billion , a decrease of 11% compared to 2016, mainly due to the fact that ERDF and Cohesion Fund expenditure decreased by about 50%, or EUR 17.4 billion, due to fewer expenses incurred relating to the previous programming period (2007-2013); total assets amounted to EUR 166.2 billion, an increase of approximately 2%; pre-financing (excluding other advances to Member States and contributions to the Bêkou and Africa trust funds) on the EU balance sheet amounted to EUR 44.3 billion (2016: EUR 41.6 billion); the significance and volume of financial instruments financed by the EU budget under direct and indirect management increases from year to year. This use of the EU budget aims at maximising the impact of the funds available; as at 31 December 2017, the total liabilities were EUR 236.5 billion, reflecting an increase of approx. 1 % when compared to the previous year; total financial corrections and confirmed recoveries amounted to EUR 2 662 million (2016: EUR 3 777 million), of which EUR 1 826 million resulted from corrective measures.
Implementation of appropriations : the 2017 implementation for all types of appropriations (budget, carry-overs from 2017 and assigned revenue) was 97 % for commitments and 93.9 % for payments . Appropriations from the budget were fully implemented in 2017 (98.35 % in payments), a good achievement given the uncertainties which prevailed in 2016 and most of 2017.
For the sub-heading 1b Economic, social and territorial cohesion, the financial implementation of 20142020 programmes progressed significantly compared to 2016, while the first closure payments were made for the 2007-2013 programmes. In heading 2 Sustainable Growth: Natural Resources, the financial implementation of the new EAFRD programmes also increased compared to 2016.
Outstanding commitments (RAL, committed amounts not yet paid for) stood at EUR 267 billion at the end of 2017. The increase of over EUR 28 billion in comparison with the end of 2016 was larger than expected. In 2018, a further increase of RAL is expected as a result of the difference between budgeted commitment and payment appropriations. However, this increase should be significantly lower than in 2017.
Documents
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0242/2019
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A8-0110/2019
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05824/2019
- Committee opinion: PE631.872
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05826/2019
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE634.491
- Committee opinion: PE629.766
- Committee opinion: PE629.594
- Committee opinion: PE630.381
- Committee opinion: PE627.682
- Committee opinion: PE628.678
- Committee opinion: PE630.539
- Committee opinion: PE630.541
- Committee opinion: PE629.640
- Committee opinion: PE630.608
- Committee opinion: PE628.713
- Committee draft report: PE626.769
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0661
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2018)0429
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0545
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Court of Auditors: opinion, report: N8-0013/2019
- Court of Auditors: opinion, report: OJ C 357 04.10.2018, p. 0001
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2018)0521
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2018)0521
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2018)0521 EUR-Lex
- Court of Auditors: opinion, report: N8-0013/2019 OJ C 357 04.10.2018, p. 0001
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0545 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0661 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2018)0429
- Committee draft report: PE626.769
- Committee opinion: PE628.713
- Committee opinion: PE630.608
- Committee opinion: PE629.640
- Committee opinion: PE627.682
- Committee opinion: PE628.678
- Committee opinion: PE630.539
- Committee opinion: PE630.541
- Committee opinion: PE629.594
- Committee opinion: PE630.381
- Committee opinion: PE629.766
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05826/2019
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE634.491
- Committee opinion: PE631.872
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 05824/2019
Votes
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Décision 26/03/2019 17:03:19.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 2 26/03/2019 17:04:14.000 #
ES | FR | CZ | HU | DE | EL | RO | BE | GB | PT | SI | IE | LU | LV | AT | SE | CY | MT | HR | FI | SK | LT | DK | BG | EE | PL | NL | IT | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
45
|
52
|
19
|
12
|
69
|
6
|
11
|
18
|
51
|
18
|
8
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
15
|
17
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
9
|
9
|
6
|
10
|
17
|
4
|
34
|
20
|
63
|
|
PPE |
148
|
Spain PPEFor (14)Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA GARCÍA CONSUEGRA, Carlos ITURGAIZ, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Francisco José MILLÁN MON, Francisco de Paula GAMBUS MILLET, Gabriel MATO, José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Pilar AYUSO, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ, Teresa JIMÉNEZ-BECERRIL BARRIO
|
France PPEFor (12)Against (1) |
Czechia PPEFor (6) |
Hungary PPEFor (8) |
Germany PPEFor (21)Albert DESS, Angelika NIEBLER, Christian EHLER, David MCALLISTER, Dennis RADTKE, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Godelieve QUISTHOUDT-ROWOHL, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Manfred WEBER, Markus FERBER, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Rainer WIELAND, Reimer BÖGE, Sabine VERHEYEN, Werner KUHN
Against (1) |
1
|
Romania PPEFor (8) |
3
|
Portugal PPEFor (8) |
5
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (7) |
1
|
3
|
9
|
||||
Verts/ALE |
38
|
Spain Verts/ALE |
5
|
1
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (8) |
2
|
United Kingdom Verts/ALEFor (5) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||||||||
GUE/NGL |
35
|
3
|
3
|
Germany GUE/NGL |
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
36
|
France EFDDAgainst (6) |
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom EFDDFor (12) |
1
|
1
|
14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
NI |
10
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
ENF |
30
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
Italy ENFAgainst (6) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
ECR |
57
|
2
|
Germany ECRAgainst (5) |
3
|
United Kingdom ECR |
2
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
Poland ECRFor (2)Against (12) |
2
|
Italy ECRAgainst (3)Abstain (1) |
|||||||||||||||
ALDE |
56
|
Spain ALDEFor (5)Against (3) |
France ALDEAgainst (5) |
4
|
3
|
1
|
Belgium ALDEAgainst (5) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
Netherlands ALDEAgainst (5) |
|||||||
S&D |
133
|
France S&DFor (2)Against (6) |
3
|
2
|
Germany S&DAgainst (22)
Arndt KOHN,
Arne LIETZ,
Babette WINTER,
Bernd LANGE,
Birgit SIPPEL,
Constanze KREHL,
Dietmar KÖSTER,
Evelyne GEBHARDT,
Gabriele PREUSS,
Ismail ERTUG,
Jens GEIER,
Kerstin WESTPHAL,
Maria NOICHL,
Martina WERNER,
Michael DETJEN,
Norbert NEUSER,
Petra KAMMEREVERT,
Susanne MELIOR,
Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN,
Tiemo WÖLKEN,
Udo BULLMANN,
Ulrike RODUST
|
2
|
4
|
United Kingdom S&DAgainst (13) |
Portugal S&DFor (1)Against (6) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
Sweden S&DAgainst (5) |
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
Poland S&D |
3
|
Italy S&DFor (1)Against (26)
Alessia Maria MOSCA,
Andrea COZZOLINO,
Caterina CHINNICI,
Cécile Kashetu KYENGE,
Damiano ZOFFOLI,
Daniele VIOTTI,
Elena GENTILE,
Elly SCHLEIN,
Flavio ZANONATO,
Giuseppe FERRANDINO,
Goffredo Maria BETTINI,
Isabella DE MONTE,
Luigi MORGANO,
Massimo PAOLUCCI,
Mercedes BRESSO,
Michela GIUFFRIDA,
Nicola CAPUTO,
Nicola DANTI,
Paolo DE CASTRO,
Patrizia TOIA,
Pier Antonio PANZERI,
Pina PICIERNO,
Renata BRIANO,
Roberto GUALTIERI,
Silvia COSTA,
Simona BONAFÈ
|
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 3 26/03/2019 17:06:44.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 7 26/03/2019 17:07:26.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 9 26/03/2019 17:07:39.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 28 26/03/2019 17:07:52.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 29 26/03/2019 17:10:17.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Résolution 26/03/2019 17:10:33.000 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Décision #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 2 #
ES | FR | CZ | HU | DE | EL | RO | BE | GB | PT | SI | IE | LU | LV | AT | SE | CY | MT | HR | FI | SK | LT | DK | BG | EE | PL | NL | IT | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
45
|
53
|
19
|
12
|
69
|
6
|
11
|
18
|
51
|
18
|
8
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
15
|
17
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
9
|
9
|
6
|
10
|
17
|
4
|
34
|
20
|
63
|
|
PPE |
148
|
Spain PPEFor (14)Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA GARCÍA CONSUEGRA, Carlos ITURGAIZ, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Francisco José MILLÁN MON, Francisco de Paula GAMBUS MILLET, Gabriel MATO, José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Pilar AYUSO, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ, Teresa JIMÉNEZ-BECERRIL BARRIO
|
France PPEFor (12)Against (1) |
Czechia PPEFor (6) |
Hungary PPEFor (8) |
Germany PPEFor (21)Albert DESS, Angelika NIEBLER, Christian EHLER, David MCALLISTER, Dennis RADTKE, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Godelieve QUISTHOUDT-ROWOHL, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Manfred WEBER, Markus FERBER, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Rainer WIELAND, Reimer BÖGE, Sabine VERHEYEN, Werner KUHN
Against (1) |
1
|
Romania PPEFor (8) |
3
|
Portugal PPEFor (8) |
5
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (7) |
1
|
3
|
9
|
||||
Verts/ALE |
38
|
Spain Verts/ALE |
5
|
1
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (8) |
2
|
United Kingdom Verts/ALEFor (5) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||||||||
GUE/NGL |
35
|
3
|
3
|
Germany GUE/NGL |
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
36
|
France EFDDAgainst (6) |
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom EFDDFor (12) |
1
|
1
|
14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
NI |
10
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
ENF |
31
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
Italy ENFAgainst (6) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
ECR |
57
|
2
|
Germany ECRAgainst (5) |
3
|
United Kingdom ECR |
2
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
Poland ECRFor (2)Against (12) |
2
|
Italy ECRAgainst (3)Abstain (1) |
|||||||||||||||
ALDE |
56
|
Spain ALDEFor (5)Against (3) |
France ALDEAgainst (5) |
4
|
3
|
1
|
Belgium ALDEAgainst (5) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
Netherlands ALDEAgainst (5) |
|||||||
S&D |
133
|
France S&DFor (2)Against (6) |
3
|
2
|
Germany S&DAgainst (22)
Arndt KOHN,
Arne LIETZ,
Babette WINTER,
Bernd LANGE,
Birgit SIPPEL,
Constanze KREHL,
Dietmar KÖSTER,
Evelyne GEBHARDT,
Gabriele PREUSS,
Ismail ERTUG,
Jens GEIER,
Kerstin WESTPHAL,
Maria NOICHL,
Martina WERNER,
Michael DETJEN,
Norbert NEUSER,
Petra KAMMEREVERT,
Susanne MELIOR,
Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN,
Tiemo WÖLKEN,
Udo BULLMANN,
Ulrike RODUST
|
2
|
4
|
United Kingdom S&DAgainst (13) |
Portugal S&DFor (1)Against (6) |
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
Sweden S&DAgainst (5) |
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
Poland S&D |
3
|
Italy S&DFor (1)Against (26)
Alessia Maria MOSCA,
Andrea COZZOLINO,
Caterina CHINNICI,
Cécile Kashetu KYENGE,
Damiano ZOFFOLI,
Daniele VIOTTI,
Elena GENTILE,
Elly SCHLEIN,
Flavio ZANONATO,
Giuseppe FERRANDINO,
Goffredo Maria BETTINI,
Isabella DE MONTE,
Luigi MORGANO,
Massimo PAOLUCCI,
Mercedes BRESSO,
Michela GIUFFRIDA,
Nicola CAPUTO,
Nicola DANTI,
Paolo DE CASTRO,
Patrizia TOIA,
Pier Antonio PANZERI,
Pina PICIERNO,
Renata BRIANO,
Roberto GUALTIERI,
Silvia COSTA,
Simona BONAFÈ
|
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 3 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 7 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 9 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 28 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Am 29 #
A8-0110/2019 - Inés Ayala Sender - Résolution #
Amendments | Dossier |
427 |
2018/2166(DEC)
2018/11/19
CULT
31 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Notes that any EU supported internship or apprenticeship programme must have proper monitoring and controls, including pre-placement checks and consultation with trade unions where a collective agreement exists, to prevent displacement of paid work and to ensure the internship or apprenticeship is genuinely beneficial to those taking part;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Is alarmed by the low take-up and insufficient geographical coverage of the Erasmus+ Student Loan Guarantee Facility; urges the Commission and European Investment Fund to put in place an implementation strategy to maximise the Facility’s effectiveness till 2020; the budget not used for the Student Loan Guarantee Facility should be reallocated to the Programme itself and allow for a better funding coverage of actions within the different strands;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Is alarmed by the low take-up and insufficient geographical coverage of the Erasmus+ Student Loan Guarantee Facility; urges the Commission and European Investment Fund to put in place an implementation strategy to maximise the Facility’s effectiveness; stresses the importance of the Erasmus+ programme being more accessible to young citizens of participating states who come from a modest social background, in particular young Europeans living in rural areas;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Is alarmed by the low take-up and insufficient geographical coverage of the Erasmus+ Student Loan Guarantee Facility; urges the Commission and European Investment Fund to put in place an implementation strategy to maximise the Facility’s effectiveness or, alternatively, to facilitate the redistribution of the unused funds in the programme;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Is alarmed by the low take-up
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Deplores the fact that the Student Loan Guarantee Facility was launched in February 2015 after signature of the delegation agreement with the European Investment Fund (EIF) in December 2014;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Notes with disappointment that students may have to take out bank loans in order to take part in Erasmus+ programmes;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Highlights that indebtedness has a negative impact on personal development and on sound integration in the labour market and that inclusive and widely available grants must be provided so that no student is excluded on account of insufficient income;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the results of 30 years of Erasmus, engaging 9 million
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is worried by the
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is worried by the still low project success rates under the Europe for Citizens programme and the Creative Europe Culture sub-programme (20% and 15% respectively in 2017); stresses that a more adequate level
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is worried by the still low project success rates under the Europe for Citizens programme and the Creative Europe Culture sub-programme (2
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Is alarmed by some of the actions implemented in particular in the cross- sectoral strand of the Creative Europe programme as noted in the 2017 Annual Report of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, in particular as regards support for the 'less experienced Desks' situated in Kosovo, Ukraine and Tunisia, amongst others; calls for these events outside the European Union to be strictly limited;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Is alarmed by the extension of European programmes, in particular the Creative Europe programme which this year welcomed Kosovo, to EU candidate countries or those associated with the neighbourhood policy, in particular as regards the impact of such extension on the European identity of these programmes and their budgetary balance;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the role of EACEA in implementing the three culture and education programmes, expresses however its concern about the EACEA internal control weakness identified by an audit on the Erasmus+ and Creative Europe grant management;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the role of EACEA in implementing the three culture and education programmes, expresses however its concern about the EACEA internal control weakness identified by an audit on the Erasmus+ and Creative Europe grant management; calls on EACEA to put in place the necessary corrective actions, in order to guarantee the highest quality of EACEA implementation of the culture and education programmes; encourages EACEA to oversee the expenditure relating to missions outside the European Union in connection with the programmes under its auspices;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the role of EACEA in implementing the three culture and education programmes, expresses however its concern about the EACEA internal control weakness identified by an audit on the Erasmus+ and Creative Europe grant management; calls on EACEA to put in place the necessary corrective actions, in order to ensure full transparency, and guarantee the highest quality of EACEA implementation of the culture and education programmes;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes the first results of the implementation stage of the Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility, with the initial signing of 280 contracts with the financial intermediaries; looks forward for a steady progress of the Facility operational phase
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes the first results of the implementation stage of the Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility, with the initial signing of 280 contracts with the financial intermediaries; looks forward for a steady progress of the Facility operational phase
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the results of 30 years of Erasmus, engaging 9 million people (including young people and students) in mobility activity since 1987; stresses the strong European added value of the programme and its role in delivering as a strategic investment in Europe’s young people;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Notes that the internal control system of the European Schools needs further improvements to meet the recommendation made by the Court of Auditors and the European Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS); demands, in particular, further efforts in closing the remaining recommendations related to the management of extra-budgetary accounts; notes that the gradual entry into force of the new Financial Regulation of the European Schools will implicate major challenges for the governance of the European Schools as the functions of Authorising Officer and Accounting Officer will be centralised and Financial control will become an internal control unit, at the service of the Authorising Officer; considers, in this regard, that the restructuring of the different accounting and control functions must be supported by an adequate administrative system; draws attention to the several challenges that lie ahead of the European Schools, such as the Brexit transition and the worsening of the Schools’ overcrowding situation in Brussels;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recognises that the Court of Auditors has a heavy workload; asks the Court, nonetheless, to publish its own reports on time, and in particular those on the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union and the European Schools, so that Parliament may have sufficient time to perform properly its own duties of budgetary and political control;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Is alarmed at the goals established by the Paris Declaration in 2015 regarding the Erasmus+ inclusion objectives for refugees and migrants; points out that the Erasmus+ programmes are supposed to benefit primarily nationals of the states participating in the programme, in particular young Europeans;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Notes the Erasmus programme needs to do more to be accessible to marginalised groups, in particular, persons with disabilities and special education requirements, persons who are geographically disadvantaged, early school leavers, persons belonging to a minority, those at a socio-economic disadvantage etc.;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the start of the implementation phase of the European Solidarity Corps (ESC) with 2500 placements offered to the young people;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the start of the implementation
source: 630.534
2018/11/27
AGRI
19 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the findings of the Court of Auditors confirming that the level of error has continued to decrease, given that the error rate fell from 2.5% in 2016 to 2.4% in 2017 in the ‘Natural resources’ area and its financial impact is reduced further by financial corrections and recoveries, since amounts wrongly paid come back to the budget; notes that agricultural and rural development policies account for 98% of spending in this area and that, in its report, the Court of Auditors used a sample totalling 230 transactions in 21 Member States; expects the error rate to keep decreasing further as beneficiaries complete their adjustment to the new rules of the ongoing CAP period;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Takes account that in agricultural sector the amounts received by the beneficiaries are relatively small compared to other EU-projects and therefore the administrative burden to prove correct use of money is proportionally higher;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Welcomes that the implementation of new instruments and processes for using performance data, such as IT applications as the LPIS data on land parcels, has facilitated the checking and updating of declared agricultural area for both Member States’ paying agencies and farmers; this will help to carry out cross- checks on direct aid applications, as well as reducing levels of errors;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that simplifying EU legislation and reducing the administrative burden on farmers and other beneficiaries must continue in the future;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Notes that access to data and good monitoring especially of environmental aspects is essential for the future, considering that certain natural resources underpin long term agricultural productivity, such as soil and biodiversity;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls on the Member States and the regions to ensure that applications for support can be filled in and submitted electronically and to help the Member States in achieving this objective;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5 c. Welcomes the publication of DG AGRI’s annual activity report 2016, which clearly shows the contribution made by the CAP to the increase of employment rates in rural areas; is in this context concerned that the proposals for the CAP post 2020and the ongoing negotiations on the MFF foresees reductions to the CAP budget in particular for Pillar II EAFRD, co- financed by Member States, covering rural development measures and strongly linked to environmental and climate commitments, farm investments and certain other rural projects;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Is of the opinion that on-the-spot checks of farmers should be reduced as much as possible and that satellite and administrative checks should be imposed;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5 d. Points out that current greening choices under Pillar1 have been too weak and did not sufficiently influence the environmental performance of the agriculture sector; underlines in this context that “greening” serves as an example of the increased need for performance auditing also in the field of agriculture in relation to environmental and climate aspects;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Calls on the Member States and the regions to ensure that the authorities obtain as much data and as many documents as possible from national and EU registration systems and that they oblige particular farmers to provide information only as a last resort; also calls on the Commission to help the Member States to achieve this objective;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 e (new) 5 e. Acknowledges that the Commission’s proposal for the CAP post 2020 is an ambitious approach into the right direction to deliver a higher level of ambition for the environment and climate, focussing on performance rather than conformity; is concerned that the subsidiarity orientation of the proposed CAP regulation may lead to a race-to-the- bottom between MS as there is inadequate requirement for them to provide evidence of the baseline situation which would allow the Commission to assess the ambition of the targets;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Notes the ECA recommendations concerning the measures seeking to lower the age of the farming community and the need for more targeted programmes for this purpose;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Recalls that there is a significant difference in types and scale of error, i.e. between unintentional omissions, administrative in nature and cases of fraud, and that omissions do not as a rule cause any financial damage to the taxpayer, which should also be taken into account while estimating the actual error rate; stresses that further rationalisation in the error calculation method is desirable; calls also for a clearer distinction to be made between different types of errors, as some errors detected do not have any negative financial implications; suggests to classify these errors in four categories: 1. errors with no negative financial implications, 2. negligence, 3. gross negligence, 4. fraud;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Encourages the Commission to keep moving towards a single audit scheme that would allow for a reduction in administrative burden at all levels brought by controls, while maintaining efficient control on the legality and regularity of payments;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) 1 d. 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;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Notes that direct payments from the EAGF account for around three quarters of expenditure and are free from material error; points out that direct payments to farmers are entitlement- based and have benefited from simplified land eligibility rules and an effective ex- ante control system(IACS) that allows automated cross-checks between databases; is concerned that a persistently high level of error remains in the other spending areas on rural development, the environment, climate action and fisheries; notes, further more, that rural development projects are inherently more complex due to the wider goals pursued, and expenditure in the three other areas is co-financed or disbursed through reimbursement of costs and ineligible beneficiaries, activities, projects or expenditure contribute around two thirds of the estimated level of error for this MFF heading;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Reminds the Commission that the risk of unintentional errors owing to complex regulation have the effect in the end to the beneficiary; stresses that there is a significant difference in types of errors for example between unintentional omissions and cases of fraud, and that omissions do not as arule, cause financial damage to the taxpayer, which should also be taken into account while estimating the actual error rate;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the findings in which the Court of Auditors, having examined a total of 29 rural development investment projects, established that 26 were in line with the priorities and focus areas set out in the rural development programmes and that Member States had applied appropriate selection procedures; also welcomes the fact that in most cases, the beneficiaries of the projects examined carried them out as planned and the Member States made checks to ascertain whether the costs were reasonable; believes therefore that the rural development approach must remain a fully supported, significant and core element in the CAP Strategic Plans, moving forward;
source: 630.638
2018/11/28
PECH
3 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes the observations of the Court of Auditors on fishing activities data gathered under the Control Regulation, which were not comprehensive or reliable enough
source: 630.578
2018/12/03
FEMM
14 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas the European Parliament has repeatedly asked the Commission to promote and implement the use of gender mainstreaming, gender budgeting and gender impact assessment in
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Highlights the need to integrate the gender perspective in European justice systems and regrets that the support of victim-friendly and gender sensitive procedures in judicial systems are not considered a specific goal in the Justice programme;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Regrets the low percentage of women who took part in the women’s entrepreneurship actions, and asks major efforts in the implementation of the budget in terms of support to female entrepreneurship and employment;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6 c. Reiterates its demand to include in the common set of result indicators for the implementation of the Union budget also gender-specific indicators based on a greater focus on the Equality, Equity and Ecology principle on top of the classic tryptic (Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness);
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 d (new) 6 d. Calls for gender impact assessment as part of general ex-ante conditionality for EU funds, and for the collection of gender disaggregated data on beneficiaries and participants;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 e (new) 6 e. Calls for a renewed commitment by Parliament, the Council and the Commission to gender equality in the next MFF and regrets that, in spite of the joint declaration having been attached to the MFF on gender mainstreaming, there has been little progress in this field and no clear gender equality strategy with specific objectives, concrete targets and allocations, has emerged from the MFF2014-2020;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that women’s rights and gender equality should be integrated
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that women’s rights and gender equality should be integrated into all relevant policy areas; reiterates therefore its call for the implementation of gender budgeting
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Reiterates its demand to include in the common set of result indicators for the implementation of the Union budget also gender-specific indicators, with due regard to the principle of sound financial management, namely in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Reiterates its call to have a separate budget line for the Daphne specific objective in order to show the commitment of the Union with the combat of violence against women and girls; calls for increased resources in this budget line and to reverse the decrease of funds dedicated to Daphne during the 2014-2020 period; calls on an steady effort to raise the awareness of the grants included in the Daphne specific objective along with measures to make its related administrative procedures more user-friendly;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Repeats its calls on the Commission to consider 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 Member States; stresses that a common set of quantifiable result and impact indicators, which would allow for better assessment of the implementation of the budget from the gender perspective, should be incorporated in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the budget, in line with the Budget Focused on Results initiative and the focus on performance;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Deplores the fact that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) does not include a gender perspective; emphasizes that a gender perspective should be included in the EFSI because the European Union will never fully and satisfactorily recover from the recent economic crises unless their impact on the women who have in majority of cases been most affected, are addressed;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Calls for gender impact assessment as part of general ex-ante conditionality for EU funds, and for the collection of data disaggregated when possible by sex on beneficiaries and participants;
source: 631.811
2018/12/06
REGI
19 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. notes that this is the first year under the revised control and assurance framework for the period 2014-2020, and that only a low number of assurance packages were submitted; highlights that Annual Report 2017 covers both 2014- 2020 cleared expenditure and closure related to the 2007-2013 period;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the opinion of the European Court of Auditors (the Court) on the 2017 accounts of the Union; highlights especially the further reduction of the aggregated payment errors in 2017 at the EU level, reaching an all-time low of 2.4 %
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. notes that a number of weaknesses were found in the performance measurement systems of Member State authorities, for a large part related to projects completed under the 2007-2013 period; invites the Commission to improve the overall performance measurement system, including the presence of result indicators at project level to allow the assessment of the contribution of a given project to specific operational programmes objectives; notes that the legislation covering the 2014-2020 programming period has strengthened the intervention logic and focus on results.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. notes that errors in financial instruments, ineligible costs and claims of ineligible VAT contributed most to the estimated level of error in cohesion policy; notes that some of the errors identified by the Court were linked to specific cases for which mitigating actions have already been taken; calls on the Commission to take
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. stresses that the Court of Auditors detected a number of weaknesses of varying importance in the work of s
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses nevertheless the importance for the EU that the Court systematically and independently assesses payment error rates of all
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. considers that, after a very slow start, the implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes has now reached cruising speed, with the payments executed in 2017 amounting to EUR 41 billion, 1.5 times the 2016 amount, notes, however, that the level of payment, amounts to 124.7 billion EUR, and is considerably lower than budgeted; ;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. calls on the Member States to improve the accuracy of their
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses nevertheless the importance for the EU that the Court systematically and independently assesses payment error rates of all politically sensitive areas of the EU budget; fears especially that the misuse of EU funds in Migration, Security and Border Management policies could have severe detrimental impacts on
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. is concerned by the fact that the overall average absorption rate for the current MFF was even lower than in the corresponding year of the previous MFF(16% to 22%), which was mainly due to the late closure of the previous MFF, delayed adoption of legal acts, difficulties in implementing the new requirements for the current MFF and the change of de- commitment rules from n+2to n+3, and the administrative burden linked to the overlaps between MFF periods;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes that the Court did not find any major flaws in the Commission’s AMIF and ISF clearance procedures and that it agrees with the Commission's clearance decisions; regrets however that of the 15 transactions examined by the Court, three
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. reiterates its call for the Commission and Member States to step up the efforts to allow the timely and swift adoption and implementation of the new operational programmes for the years 2021-2027, in order to avoid problems with absorption of the funds in the future;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the key finding of the Court that AMIF and ISF accounts cleared by the Commission in 2017 did not distinguish between pre-financing payments (advances) made by Member States to final beneficiaries, and payments made to reimburse expenditure actually incurred; agrees with the Court that even if such practice is in line with the current reporting requirements for AMIF and ISF, it nevertheless severely undermines the Commission’s supervisory role; supports the recommendation of the Court to require Member States, in the annual accounts of their AMIF and ISF national programmes, to break down the nature of the amounts they report into recoveries, pre-financing, and expenditure actually incurred, so the Commission can report this information adequately in its Annual Activity report as from
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. welcomes an increased budget flexibility introduced by the MFF mid- term review, notes, however, that further flexibility and simplification measures may prove to be necessary to adequately accommodate future needs;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the key finding of the Court that AMIF and ISF accounts cleared by the Commission in 2017 did not distinguish between pre-financing payments (advances) made by Member States to final beneficiaries, and payments made to reimburse expenditure actually incurred; agrees with the Court that, even if such practice is in line with the current reporting requirements for AMIF and ISF
source: 631.933
2018/12/07
EMPL
7 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern that the estimated error level in the area of ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ is 4,2 % - which represents a slight increase compared to 2016 (4.1%) and that most of the errors were related to the reimbursement of ineligible personnel and other direct costs declared by beneficiaries of research projects, as well as ineligible projects/beneficiaries; stresses the need to take effective measures to reduce those sources of error while achieving a high performance; deplores the fact that, as it was the case in previous years, Member States had sufficient information available to prevent, or to detect and correct, a significant number of errors: had the Commission and the Member States made proper use of all information at
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Is concerned about the delay in the implementation of ESF and YEI and at their low budgetary execution; notes that the Commission has drawn attention to the ex-ante conditionalities as one of the reasons for their delayed implementation and that the absorption is affected by the introduced annual accounts and by the risk of net financial corrections; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to seriously reconsider the continuation of ex-ante conditionalities and to make efforts to mitigate the side effects of the other novelties introduced for the current period when elaborating its legislative proposals for the post-2020 period;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Recalls that in its special report 5/2017— Youth unemployment, the Court of Auditors found that, while some progress had been made in implementing the Youth Guarantee, and while some results had been achieved, the situation fell short of the initial expectations raised at the launch of the Youth Guarantee; stresses however that the YEI and the YG still represent one of the most innovative and ambitious policy responses to youth unemployment in the wake of the economic crisis, and should therefore have the continued financial and political support of EU, national and regional institutions in their delivery in the years to come;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Stresses that establishing whether the YEI budget is well spent, and whether the ultimate YEI goal of helping young unemployed people into sustainable employment is attained, can only be achieved if operations are closely and transparently monitored on the basis of reliable and comparable data, and if Member States that have made no progress are addressed in a more ambitious manner; insists therefore that the Member States improve monitoring, reporting and the quality of data as a matter of urgency and guarantee that reliable and comparable data and figures oncurrent YEI implementation are gathered and made available in a timely manner and more frequently than is required under their annual reporting obligation, as defined in Article 19(2) of the ESF Regulation; calls on the Commission to revise its guidelines on data collection in line with the recommendation of the ECA in order to minimise the risk of overstatement of results;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Recalls that in its special report 22/2018 “Mobility under Erasmus+” the Court of Auditors found that, while the inclusion of VET in Erasmus+ brings the Programme closer to a greater variety of citizens, the VET-strand in the programme could be further improved for example through better continuity in its annual Work Programmes, reduced administrative procedures and more support from the Commission to VET institutions in finding partners;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8 b. Recalls that in its special report 06/2018 “Free Movement of Workers” the Court of Auditors found that better identification and monitoring of EU funds for labour mobility would help in ensuring coordination and complementarity of funds;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
source: 630.765
2018/12/11
AFET
20 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that no estimate of the level of error rate for spending under Heading 4 has been calculated for 2017 by the European Court of Auditors (ECA); stresses that a representative sample size for the audit of ‘Global Europe’ is essential for a rigorous and independent evaluation of financial transactions and calls for swiftly addressing this issue in order to enable better oversight on the use of EU funds by the European Parliament;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of continuing to improve the rationalisation, transparency and sound financial management, together with a better budgeting of the expenditure for individual EU election observation missions, notably regarding reoccurring service providers’ procurement costs for technical equipment and visibility material; calls upon the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to engage in a reflection to reform the current system;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is concerned about lack of visibility of EU funding pooled for projects; urges the Commission to improve visibility and to strengthen enhanced complementarity of actions of different instruments; calls on the Commission to introduce more streamlined and flexible procedures in order to make access to EU funding simpler and more effective;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Underlines the need to base the assistance on their good track record and results achieved in areas such as border management, countering terrorism and curbing illegal migration flows;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern that the Commission has made little use of conditionality to support reforms in the priority sectors in Turkey where progress in democracy and rule of law were unsatisfactory;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes with concern that the Commission has made little use of conditionality to support reforms in the priority sectors in Turkey where progress in democracy and rule of law were unsatisfactory; stresses the importance of redirecting funds to civil society and making more use of the direct management mode; asks the Commission to implement all recommendations made by the ECA on the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, notably improving monitoring and reporting on cash-assistance projects and improving with the Turkish authorities the operating environment for (I)NGOs; notes that the ECA in its report on the EU pre- accession assistance to Turkey stresses that funds spent under IPA have barely addressed some fundamental needs, including press freedom, impartiality of justice and reinforcing civil society.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Insists on the need to closely monitor the use of funds of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, ensuring that these funds are accurately targeting refugee projects and not used for any other purposes; calls on the Commission to report regularly to the budgetary authority on the compatibility of the actions financed with the underlying legal basis;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Is concerned that the use of other financial mechanisms alongside the EU budget to deliver EU policies, such as trust funds, seriously risks to undermine accountability and transparency;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Welcomes ECA's Special report No 3/2017 ‘EU Assistance to Tunisia’ and its finding that EU assistance contributed significantly to the country’s democratic transition and economic stability; calls on the Commission to continue improving the focus of EU support in line with the recommendations contained therein;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the ECA’s assessment of performance aspects in addition to checking regularity of transactions in its 2017 report; fully supports all recommendations formulated by the ECA based on the 56 transactions sampled
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Takes note of the publication of ECA's Special report No 20 /2018 “The African Peace and Security Architecture: need to refocus EU support”; calls for swift action in order to address the shortcomings identified therein, including the need to refocus EU support away from supporting operational costs towards capacity-building measures, to make interventions consistently results-based, reduce delays in contracting and retroactive financing, improve monitoring and make coherent use of financing instruments;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Recalls the importance of the EU's Pre-accession assistance and its contribution to building the political infrastructure to meet and uphold the Copenhagen criteria; welcomes recent efforts to better focus EU support in this area; stresses that improving administrative capacity of beneficiaries of IPA funds should continue to be a priority and points out the need to develop measurable indicators in order to assess progress on this issue; believes, at the same time, that political will of accession countries to enhance administrative capacity is an indispensable element in this regard, as well as for ensuring better absorption of EU funding; underlines that better use of conditionality of EU funds is critical in order to bring about change in beneficiary countries;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Calls for sustained efforts in order to address the weaknesses identified by audit authorities in the indirect management in some beneficiary countries of the second Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA II); calls on DG NEAR to continue to closely assist national authorities concerned in overcoming the shortcomings and, more specifically, in improving the training and recruitment of their staff, as well as their audit methodology, supervision and planning;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2 c. Encourages a more rigorous approach regarding disbursements to beneficiary countries in the framework of budget support, based on a comprehensive analysis of whether or not the eligibility criteria, such as satisfactory improvements in public-sector financial management, are met;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of continuing to improve the rationalisation and sound financial management
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of continuing to improve the rationalisation and sound financial management, together with a better budgeting of the expenditure for individual EU election observation missions, notably regarding reoccurring service providers’ procurement costs for technical equipment and visibility material; calls upon the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to engage in a reflection to reform the current system; in line with the findings of ECA's Special report No 22/2017 — Election Observation Missions, points out the importance of gaining a central overview of the EU Election Observation Missions recommendations and of systematically assessing their implementation status; welcomes the Commission's readiness to set up a centralised depository for storing EU EOM recommendations and hopes the necessary resources will be swiftly mobilized;
source: 632.010
2018/12/12
ENVI
13 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the launch of 24 European
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Under title: "Food Safety, animal health and welfare and plant health" Welcomes the fact that both the commitments and the payment appropriations available for the Food Safety, animal health and welfare and plant health programmes were fully implemented;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 14. Regrets that DG SANTE's average residual error rate reached 2,5 % for the overall activity in the area of food and feed safety in 2017, exceeding the materiality threshold of 2 %; notes that this is due to overstatements in costs claims of Member States, in the context of structural changes made to management and controls of the claims in one Member State; asks DG SANTE to take all the necessary measures to ensure that this does not happen again in the future by increasing for instance the use of simplification measures offered by the Financial Regulation;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 15 15. Highlights that in 2017 DG SANTE released the mid-term evaluation of the Common Financial Framework for the food chain 2014-2020, which concluded that the current framework functions well and contributed to achieving EU added
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points out that the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme, covering the years 2014-2015, was released in 2017; notes that, as most projects had yet to start and few projects had ended, that evaluation focused mainly on the processes put in place to reach the programme’s objectives, and concluded that the programme provides Union added value, while pointing to possible improvements; stresses that grant management procedures, particularly application and reporting procedures, should not only be simplified but also significantly accelerated;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points out that the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme, covering the years 2014-2015, was released in 2017; notes that, as most projects had yet to start and few projects had ended, that evaluation focused mainly on the processes put in place to reach the programme’s objectives, and concluded that the programme provides Union added value, while pointing to possible improvements; considers that this evaluation should above all seek to improve the effectiveness of the programme and that, from this point of view, it has proved wanting;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that DG CLIMA
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Under the following title "public health": Welcomes the fact that both commitments and payments appropriations of the Health program were fully implemented; notes that a large majority of actions of the Health program is being implemented through the Consumer, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency ("CHAFEA");
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Stresses that in 2017, DG SANTE completed the mid-term evaluation of the third Health Programme covering the years 2014-2016, which concluded that the Programme produced tangible results and was highly relevant to Member States' needs, and which recommended strengthening efforts to achieve Union added value, increase synergies, and ensure the upscale of results through cooperation with other Union financial instruments;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the launch of 24 European reference networks serving patients with rare and complex diseases, involving 900 highly specialised health care units from over 300 hospitals in 26 Member States; recalls the considerable effort that needs to be made in the field of rare and complex diseases;
source: 630.564
2018/12/13
TRAN
8 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the finding of the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) that the consolidated accounts of the Union for the year 2017 are reliable and that the transactions underlying the accounts of the Commission for the 2017 financial year are generally legal and regular in all material aspects, except for cost reimbursement payments, which are affected by errors; notes that the overall estimated level of error of 2,4% is still above the Court’s materiality threshold (2%), down from 3,1% in 2016 and 3,8% in 2015;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that in 2017 the Commission selected 152 projects for a total of CEF Transport funding of EUR 2,7 billion, with the total investment of EUR 4,7 billion, including other public and private financing; reiterates the importance of the CEF funding instrument for the completion of the TEN-T network, for achieving a Single European Transport Area, for developing the cross-border links and filling the missing links; regrets that the opportunity offered by the CEF has not been fully appreciated by all national stakeholders;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Invites the European TEN-T Coordinators to conduct a thorough assessment of the projects completed and the improvements achieved along the TEN-T corridors under the current programming period, and to present it to the Commission and the Parliament; furthermore asks the Commission to propose a mechanism, including technical assistance, to increase the added value of European Funds in completion of the TEN-T corridors and maximise progress;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls upon the Commission to clearly present for the sector of transport an assessment of the impact of EFSI on other financial instruments, in particular with regard to the CEF as well as on the coherence of the CEF Debt Instrument with other Union initiatives in good time before the proposal for the next MFF; requests that this assessment presents a clear analysis on the geographical balance of investments in the transport sector; recalls, however, that the amount of money spent under a financial instrument should not be considered to be the only pertinent criteria to be used when assessing its performance; invites, therefore, the Commission to deepen its assessment of the achievements completed under Union funded transport projects and measure their added-value;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that the Commission’s Internal Audit Service, as part of its audit on the Commission’s supervision of the implementation of CEF financial instruments, found that there was a very low rate of implementation of financial instruments under CEF and the majority of the budget originally allocated to CEF financial instruments (EUR 2,43 billion) was re-allocated to CEF grants budget lines, leaving only EUR 296 million available for CEF financial instruments until 2020; also notes that one of the reasons given was that the eligibility criteria of the CEF financial instruments and of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) largely overlap and potential CEF eligible projects have in fact been financed by EFSI, as it has greater political priority and a larger remit; calls on the Commission, as regards the CEF, to improve the level of awareness among beneficiaries of the eligibility rules, in particular by drawing a clear distinction between an implementation contract and subcontract - which was the main source of confusion among beneficiaries; calls on the Commission to ensure that financial instruments complement rather that substitute each other;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Reiterates its request that the Commission, in view of the multiple sources of funding, provides an easy access to projects, in form of a one-stop-shop to allow citizens to clearly follow the developments and funding of infrastructures co-financed by Union funds and by the EFSI; encourages the Commission therefore to publish, in cooperation with the Member States, an annual overview of transport and tourism projects that have been co-financed through the ERDF and cohesion funds as it is practised for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Notes that the number of financial instruments has increased considerably which allows for new blending opportunities in the transport sector, while at the same time creating a complex web of arrangements around the Union budget; is concerned that these instruments alongside the Union budget could risk undermining the level of accountability and transparency, as reporting, audit and public scrutiny are not aligned; calls upon the Commission to find how the Union budgetary system could be reformed, in particular as how best to ensure that overall funding arrangements are not more complex than necessary to meet Union policy objectives and guarantee accountability, transparency and auditability;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Is concerned that Commission’s Internal Audit Service found significant weaknesses in DG MOVE's current system of monitoring both aviation and maritime security policy and made three very important recommendations; calls on DG MOVE to fully implement the action plan that it prepared for addressing the identified risks in order to ensure the security of property and people in the Member States;
source: 632.100
2019/01/07
DEVE
17 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Is very worried by an ongoing trend in Commission proposals to ignore legally binding provisions of Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a when it comes to Official Development Assistance (‘ODA’) eligible expenditure and eligible countries for Development Cooperation Instrument (‘DCI’) spending; recalls that legality of EU spending is a key principle of sound financial management and that political considerations should not take precedence over clearly spelled out legal provisions; recalls that DCI is first and foremost an instrument designed to fight poverty; ___________________ 1a Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020 (OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 44).
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Fully recognizes the complex nature of many challenges and the need for multifaceted and complementary response actions, but insists on the need for clarity in funding arrangements and respect for international commitments;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 e (new) 5e. Calls for an incentive-based approach to development by introducing the more-for-more principle, taking as an example the European Neighbourhood Policy; believes that the more and the faster a country progress in its internal reforms in relation to the building and consolidation of democratic institutions, the respect for human rights and the rule of law, the more support it should receive from the Union;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 f (new) 5f. Recognise that no country has ever developed without engaging in further trade relations with their neighbours and the rest of the world; further encourages the financing of aid for trade activities in order to allow developing countries to participate to a much greater degree in global value chains in the future; stresses in this context the increasing importance of digital connectivity in order to achieve a more balanced distribution of the globalisation benefits in favour of developing countries;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 g (new) 5g. Underlines the high importance of supporting micro-, small and medium- sized enterprises and calls in particular for the establishment of local solutions for a better access to finance with a further strengthening of micro-finance loans and guarantee system;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 h (new) 5 h. Underlines the importance of increasing the attribution of funds aiming at supporting good governance, democracy and the rule of law in developing countries in order to promote accountable and transparent institutions, support capacity building and foster a participatory decision-making and public access to information;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 i (new) 5i. Emphasises the importance of the provision of clean water and of the building of additional wastewater disposal facilities;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 j (new) 5j. Draws attention to the scale and implication of energy poverty in developing countries and to the Union’s strong involvement in efforts to reduce such poverty; underlines the need for strong and concerted efforts by governments and stakeholders in affected countries to reduce energy poverty;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 k (new) 5k. Welcomes the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations for improving the transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs published in the special report 2018/ 35, where it , amongst other things, recommends that the Commission improve the reliability of the information on NGOs in its accounting system, and that the Commission improve the information collected on funds implemented by NGOs; calls therefore on the Commission to implement these proposals before the end of the current mandate;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Regrets that in every annual activity report since 2012, the Commission’s Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development had to issue a reservation on the regularity of underlying transactions which points to serious internal management deficiencies;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Highlights the highly negative findings by the European Court of Auditors on Public-Private Partnerships1 (‘PPPs’) and the Court’s recommendation “not to promote a more intensive and widespread use of PPPs” inside the Union; calls on the Commission to take this recommendation fully into account when dealing with PPPs in developing countries where the environment for successful implementation of PPPs is even more difficult than inside the EU; _________________ 1a. Special report Nr 9/2018: Public Private Partnerships in the EU: Widespread shortcomings and limited benefits
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Believes that promoting peace, security and justice in developing countries is of paramount importance for the Union in order to address the root causes of migration; recognizes that expenditure relating to security is particulary relevant in the current efforts to comprehensively address the security- development nexus and deliver on Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that the EU is collectively committed to provide 0.7 % of Gross National Income as Official Development Assistance (‘ODA’); regrets that the EU and its Member States, in 2017, have not made progress towards reaching this goal, with the overall EU ODA decreasing from 0.51% to 0.50% and several countries decreasing their ODA
Amendment 6 #
5. Recalls that the EU is collectively committed to provide 0.7 % of Gross National Income as Official Development Assistance (‘ODA’);
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Given the shift in aid modalities from direct grants to trust funds and blended finance, including through the European Fund for Sustainable Development, invites the Council, Commission and European Investment Bank to adopt an inter-institutional agreement with the European Parliament on transparency, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny on the basis of the policy principles set out in the New European Consensus on Development;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls for an enlargement of the “Erasmus for Young Entrepreneuers” programme beyond Europe, in particular to developing countries, while providing the necessary financial means;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Welcomes the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations for improving the transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs published in the special report 2018/ 35, where it, amongst other things, recommends that the Commission improve the reliability of the information on NGOs in its accounting system, and that the Commission improve the information collected on funds implemented by NGOs; calls therefore on the Commission to implement these proposals before the end of the current mandate;
source: 632.728
2019/01/31
CONT
276 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Proposal for a decision 1 Citation 4 — having regard to the Commission’s 2017 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget (COM(2018)0457)
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. (a) Recalls the investigations the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) conducted on the ELIOS and “Heart of Budapest” projects where serious irregularities were found; (b) Is concerned about the high rate of procedures that involves only a single bidder in Hungary, which can be viewed as a possible indicator of a strong risk of corruption; call on the Commission to put in place measures to promote competition in this sector;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 a (new) 33a. Regrets that, as noted by the Court, in the AARs the Commission presents at least 13 different rates for the two programming periods as a measure of the expenditure at risk. Such a large number of rates leads to a lack of clarity and potential confusion as to their relevance and the assurance provided[1]. This could partially explain the worrying discrepancy between the Residual Error- Rate as calculated by the Court, versus the Commission - 3.00 % versus 1.39 % respectively; [1] 2017 annual report, paragraph 6.57.
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 a (new) 33a. Sees the need to further clarify procurement procedures and the bidder situation in Member States as bidding procedures may have turned in semi legal procedures preventing competition and possibly promoting fraud; welcomes the ‘single bidder’ study of the Commission and awaits the results;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37.
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Notes a fast increase in inequalities of direct payments in some other Member States, mainly Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Denmark over the last ten years with a growing share of beneficiaries receiving more than EUR 100 000; calls on the Commission and the national authorities to take appropriate measures and to report thereof;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Notes with great concern that the Court found a persistently high level of error in areas corresponding to one quarter of the budget for ‘Natural Resources’, which includes the expenditure for market measures, rural development, environment, climate action and fisheries under the EAGF; notes in addition that the main sources of error were non-compliance with eligibility conditions, the provision of inaccurate information on areas and non- compliance with agro-environmental commitments; stresses that such errors should be better detected by the managing authorities of individual Member States or in cases when the ex-post audits point to these errors the samples for future audits and on-site checks should be updated to provide for a better controls;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Notes with concern that the Court found a persistently high level of error in areas corresponding to one quarter of the budget for ‘Natural Resources’, which includes the expenditure for market
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Calls on the Commission to continue its work to assess the effectiveness of the Member States’ actions to address the underlying causes of these errors and to issue further guidance where necessary;
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a decision 3 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance23 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Calls on the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the Member States’ actions to address the underlying causes of these errors and to issue further guidance or direct help where necessary;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 a (new) 39a. Calls on the Commission to arrange for a genuine simplification of the procedure, including in the documentation required in order to gain access to funding, without neglecting the principles of audit and monitoring; calls for special attention to be paid to administrative support for small-scale producers, for whom the funding is a vital prerequisite for their business survival;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Notes with great concern that the results of the cross compliance on the spot checks made by DG AGRI are worrying, and in particular that 47 % of the total number of on the spot checks has led to sanctions; asks the Commission to check the implementation of the remedial action taken by Member State authorities where it found it could place no or limited reliance on the certification body’s work;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Notes with concern that the results of the cross compliance on the spot checks made by DG AGRI are worrying, and in particular that 47 % of the total number of on the spot checks has led to sanctions;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 a (new) Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 a (new) 40a. Given that the environmental objectives of the ‘greening’ have not met any of the expectations raised and that they produced a considerable increase of the administrative burden for both farmers and public administrations, asks the Commission to ensure that the green architecture of the new CAP proposal with the so-called eco-scheme, will achieve better environmental results based on the reward of the efforts that overcome the reinforced conditionality of the new proposal;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 a (new) 40a. Is concerned about the situation found in Slovakia, where DG AGRI’s audit has identified a number of deficiencies and an OLAF investigation is ongoing; believes that there is a risk of infiltration by organised crime and calls on the Commission to actively monitor the situation and take the necessary measures;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 b (new) 40b. Recalls in particular, that the Director General of DG AGRI refers to an analysis made by an external contractor, which found that: ‘overall, the greening measures have led to only small changes in farmers’ management practices, except in a few specific areas. For both Member States and farmers, instead of environmental priorities, the main concern tended to consist in minimising the administrative burden of implementation, and avoiding any errors as controls and enforcement may lead to the reduction of CAP payments’;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 c (new) 40c. Calls on the Commission to provide structural data for the 20 biggest receivers of direct payments in Member States;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 d (new) 40d. Is concerned that the highly critical ECA Special Reports 10/2017 and 21/2017 on Young Farmers and Greening, showing that almost no desired result was achieved, did not have financial consequences; criticises that the financing of those policy areas just goes on as if nothing had happened;
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a decision 3 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Notes in addition that the number of returnees co-financed by the AMIF was 48 250 in 2017 compared to 5 904 in 2014, and that of those returned, the share of non- voluntary returns has increased from one quarter (25%) in 2014 to half (50%) in 2017, while the reported number of persons who returned voluntarily was 17 736 in 2017; notes also, however, with concern, that there is no Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to measure what’s being done to protect those migrants - legal and illegal - who most need protection, the women and children;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 a (new) 43a. Welcomes the fact the Commission has adopted ambitious objectives in the policy area of migration and security and, in particular, that the Commission intends - as to the illegal migration to: (a) work with the countries of transit and origin to prevent irregular flows; (b) address the root causes of migration; (c) improve cooperation and readmission, fight against migrant smuggling, achieve effective returns of irregular migrants (EU resettlement schemes and EU/Turkey statement of March 2016); (d) put in place the EU relocation scheme, reinforce the management of the external borders and to reform the Common European Asylum System;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 b (new) 43b. Notes that the achievement of the objectives are measured through the following key performance objectives: (a) rate of return of irregular migrants to the third countries measured as % of effected returns compared to return decisions issued by MS; (b) convergence of protection recognition rates for asylum seekers from the same country; (c) use of EU information exchange mechanisms measured through the number of hits in SIS and Prüm databases and the use of Europol’s Siena and EIS; (d) number of operations conducted with the involvement European Cyber-crime Centre at Europol; (e) compliance approach: error rate below 2 %;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 a (new) 43a. Notes in that the number of returnees co-financed by the AMIF was 48 250 in 2017 compared to 5 904 in 2014, and that of those returned, the share of non-voluntary returns has increased from one quarter (25 %) in 2014 to half (50 %) in 2017, while the reported number of persons who returned voluntarily was 17 736 in 2017; stresses that although the numbers of returns rose significantly the Commission should do its upmost to double check that non- voluntary returns are fully justified;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 a (new) 43a. Calls on the Commission to consider the migration policy not only as an urgency issue, but to establish a comprehensive policy truly based on the principles of solidarity;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 44 a (new) 44a. Deplores the Court’s failure to provide a specific error rate for this heading; calls on the Court to provide this figure in its forthcoming annual reports;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 a (new) 47a. Recommends (a) the Commission to define and put in place a balanced and comprehensive migration policy based on the principles of solidarity and partnership instead of considering the migration policy as a crisis management issue; (b) DG HOME to introduce a Key Performance Indicator relating to situation of the most vulnerable migrants and in particular child migrants and refugee women and girls in order to prevent and avoid abuse and trafficking; (c) DG HOME to systematically provide error rates at payment and residual error rate; (d) the Commission to require Member States, in the annual accounts of their AMIF and ISF national programmes, to break down the nature of the amounts they report into recoveries, pre-financing and expenditure actually incurred; and report in its AAR from 2018 onwards the actual spending per fund;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 a (new) 47a. Is seriously concerned about the weaknesses in EASO’s management and audits; considers it unacceptable that the Commission did not monitor them effectively and did not intervene quickly to resolve the situation; calls on the Commission to constantly monitor the agencies operating under Heading 3;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 b (new) 47b. Points out that there is a risk that EU money foreseen for development is used for other purposes as-to fight illegal migration or military action;
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a decision 3 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 c (new) 47c. Is deeply worried that an EU legal document, dated 19 November 2018, pointed out that the situation of Czech Prime Minister qualifies as a conflict of interest, because he could influence decisions on the use of Union funds of which companies linked to him had benefited;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 d (new) 47d. Notes that the Agrofert Holding is the single biggest group in Czech agriculture and food industry, second largest in chemistry and plays a significant role also in forestry; furthermore recalls that Agrofert is also an owner of the MAFRA Publishing Company a.s., one of the largest media groups publishing some of the most popular printed and online media, such as MF DNES, Lidové noviny, iDnes; calls on the Commission to investigate also the situation of the Czech PM as media owner to draw clean conclusions from this case;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 e (new) 47e. Notes with deep regret that, despite multiple alerts raised by the European Parliament, the Commission has reacted to the issue of the Czech PM only after Transparency International Czech Republic filed a complaint against the conflict of interest of Mr Babiš in June 2018;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 f (new) 47f. Recalls that the Commission services have asked the national authority responsible for the coordination of EU Funds (Ministry of Regional Development) to provide the following information with respect to funding to enterprises being part of the his company holding: (a) list of all projects financed by the ERDF, Cohesion Fund, ESF, EAFRD which relate to the AGROFERT group since 2012 when the current Prime Minister entered as Minister of Finance the government, and whether the projects are still ongoing or have been completed; (b) the amounts granted, already paid and still to be paid (as well as the Fund concerned) to these companies or to other companies of the AGROFERT group to allow us i) to confirm the amounts mentioned in the complaint and ii) possibly identify other funding, if any; (c) periods when such amounts were granted and paid; (d) whether the projects were subject to verifications (administrative and/or on- the-spot) with respect to such funding and the outcome of such verifications;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 g (new) 47g. Welcomes that the Czech Ministry of Regional Development has collected the requested information from the different managing authorities concerned and has forwarded it to the Commission;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 h (new) 47h. Asks the Commission what action it intends to take in light of the recent legal appreciation of the situation;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 i (new) 47i. Recalls that the European Parliament asked last year the Commission to speed up the conformity clearance procedure opened on 8 January 2016 to get detailed and precise information on the risk of conflicts of interest concerning the State’s Agricultural Intervention Fund in the Czech Republic;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 j (new) 47j. Welcomes the progress made in implementing the 181 Greece priority projects: (a) 119 projects with expenditure of EUR 7.1 billion are reported as completed; (b) 17 projects with expenditure of EUR 0.5 billion are to be completed by March 2019 with national funds (additional EUR 0.53 billion estimated to be needed); (c) 24 projects (EUR 0.8 billion) are phased into 2014-2020 where they are estimated to require another EUR 1.1 billion funding; (d) 21 items with an estimated budget of EUR 1.1 billion were cancelled; sees a success story in the way the Commission supported Greece to implement and finish Union projects;
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a decision 3 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 k (new) 47k. Recalls that the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF) found serious irregularities in the ELIOS- and “Heart- of-Budapest” projects; in the first case a small amount of funds was recovered, whereas in the second case the Hungarian authorities had accepted the financial correction, but the latter had not been implemented last September; notes that the facts surrounding the Metro-line- four are still “sub judice”;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 l (new) 47l. Notes that there are currently 6 conformity enquiries ongoing in relation to Slovakia; for Rural Development, DG AGRI audits have found a number of deficiencies in the management and control of investment and forestry measures; as regards the management of the area-based direct payments, a DG AGRI audit performed in 2017 indicated that there are certain weaknesses in the administration and control system and an OLAF investigation is currently ongoing on allegations of fraud;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 m (new) 47m. Asks the Commission to speed up the conformity procedures and keep the EP informed about the follow-up; is of the opinion that measures could be taken on the basis of the financial regulation pending the outcome of the enquiries, as for instance the interruption or suspension of the funds; calls on the Commission to examine the possibility to withdraw of the accreditation of the paying agency;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 n (new) 47n. Is seriously concerned by the outcomes of the mission of the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament (CONT) to Slovakia that has revealed a serious threat to the Rule of Law in the country, great risk of fraud in the area of Union financing of agriculture and forestry, significant shortcomings in the public procurement procedure, shortcomings in the land management, high risk of conflict of interest within the public administration, this all taking place in a context of a murder of Ján Kuciak, a journalist investigating the aforementioned issues; calls on the Commission and OLAF to take the conclusions and recommendations of the CONT Committee outlined in the report very seriously and take immediate appropriate measures to quickly resolve the dramatic situation in Slovakia;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 n (new) 47n. Asks the Commission to report to the European Parliament every three months on the follow up in Slovakia concerning the monitoring of the management and control system for direct payments;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Points out that for 2017, the Court found the highest estimated level of error in spending under “Competitiveness for growth and jobs”, at 4,2 %; notes that these are expenditures managed directly by the Commission, and for which the Commission is solely and directly accountable; expects that the Commission adopts an urgent Action Plan to improve the situation and implements all measures at its disposal to lower the level of error in spending;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Notes that for 2017, the Court has
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a decision 4 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance34 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 – subparagraph 1 (new) Stresses that regarding external relations DG NEAR and DG DEVCO use in their AARs residual error rates that are the products of residual error rate (RER) studies and that the RER is calculated on transactions only from closed contracts, for which all controls have been already applied;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Notes with concern the fact that the Court considered that the RER studies were only broadly fit for purpose whilst having concerns about the quality of those studies; stresses the fact that the Commission is using more than 10 different methodologies to calculate the error rate of their payments which does not contribute to better transparency and accountability of the Commission but, to the opposite, only blurs the true value of the error rates; calls on the Commission to use the same methodology when calculating the error rate as the Court does;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Notes the fact that the Court considered that the RER studies were broadly fit for purpose
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 – subparagraph 1 (new) Notes that the RER of DG DEVCO and DGNEAR do not include payments made in 2017;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 60. Notes that, according to the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) the innovation performance of the EU has increased by 5.8 % since 2010; notes, however, that there has been no convergence between EU countries; notes that the following countries benefit most from the funds under Horizon 2020 (Participant Net Requested EU Contribution in Euro): Germany 5 710 188 927.80 / United Kingdom 5 152 013 650.95 / France 3 787 670 675.13; calls on the Commission to pay greater attention to the geographic distribution of research funds with the view to contributing to the creation of a level playing field for growth and jobs in the European research area;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 62 62. Noticed that the Annual Activity Report (AAR) of the Directorate General (DG) RTD mentioned 6 different error rates, three for FP7 and three for Horizon 2020; stresses that such an approach does not facilitate transparency and accountability and should be improved immediately; accepts however that two different programmes under two different financial periods were concerned;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 64 64. Notes
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 65 a (new) 65a. Points out that there is major interest and concern within the Union on security and migration, and that the Court should address this concern with an increased scrutiny of this budgetary area, with DG HOME required to produce payment error-rates along with Residual Error-Rates;
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a decision 4 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 66 66. Is concerned by the significant weaknesses identified in the management and control systems of EASO that justified the adoption of a reservation on reputational grounds; stresses though that DG HOME has promptly reacted by introducing a co-decision process by the executive board and put in place new management of EASO to bring the situation under control;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 70 a (new) 70a. Notes with concern the large number of contracts awarded to a very limited number of national development agencies with the attendant risk of re- nationalisation of EU policy contrary to the interests of greater integration of EU external policy; urges the Commission, in addition to granting the discharge authority access to the pillar assessment, to do so in such a way as to make it publicly accessible; in this regard, notes with concern the commercial focus of these national bodies invoked by the EC to restrict access to such information; calls on the Commission, as soon as possible, to strengthen and consolidate the monitoring of the tendering and contracting procedures to avoid any distortion of competition between this limited number of strongly subsidised national agencies and other public and private entities with a clear European vocation;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 71 71. Notes with concern that the Court found that the RER studies have certain limitations, as they are studies and not audits and so do not follow International Audit Standards and include very limited checks on public procurement; calls on the Commission to use the same methodology as the Court when assessing the error rate;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 73 a (new) Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 73 a (new) 73a. Believes that when providing external aid, more attention should be put by the Commission on respect for human rights as per the UN Charter, and the Rule of Law, in the receiving countries;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 25 I
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 73 a (new) 73a. Is worried about the lack of transparency in spending for financial instruments as four times more money is available for financial instruments under the current MFF; recalls that three years after the start of this MFF only 10 % of the ESI funds being spent through Financial Instruments under shared management have reached the final beneficiary; calls on the Commission to significantly improve reporting on the results of those instruments for 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 73 b (new) 73b. Calls on the Commission to present accurate and complete information on financial instruments under shared management after closure of the 2007-2013 MFF period, indicating amounts returned to the Union budget and those remaining in the Member States;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 75 75. Is deeply concerned by the fact that, according to the Court, 64 % of the total value of EFSI contracts that the EIB Group had signed by the end of 2017 was concentrated in
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a decision 4 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 75 75. Is deeply concerned by the fact that, according to the Court, 64 % of the total value of EFSI contracts that the EIB Group had signed by the end of 2017 was concentrated in six Member States
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 75 75.
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 75 a (new) 75a. Regrets the fact that only 20% of EFSI financing has supported projects that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, whereas the EIB’s standard portfolio has attained the 25% threshold; regrets that EFSI has financed projects which potentially include infrastructure installations with a serious environmental impact and dubious additionality, such as biorefineries, steelworks, regasification and gas storage facilities and motorways; calls on the Commission to propose sustainable finance or funding options and an environment conducive to investment reflecting the Union’s commitments and general goals, with a view to fostering innovation and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Union, as well as to reinforcing the social dimension of investment by bridging the investment gap in the social sector and with regard to infrastructure safety;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 76 76. Calls on the Commission to ensure that EFSI’s management bodies take into account the
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 79 79. Points out that aid to non-Union countries used increasingly alternative financing models - trust funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey - which increases the complexity of existing financial structures; however acknowledges that these instruments made it possible to react swiftly to challenging circumstances and provide flexibility;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 79 79. Points out that aid to non-Union countries used increasingly alternative financing models - trust funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey - which increases the complexity of existing
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 80 80. Points out that pooling resources from the EDF, the EU Budget and other donors in trust funds should not have as consequence that money flagged for the development and cooperation policy do not reach their normal beneficiaries and pursue their original objectives, such as the eradication of poverty and the promotion of fundamental rights;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 80 a (new) 80a. Points out that the increased use of trust funds also stems from a lack of flexibility currently possible within the Union budget;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 81 81. Highlights that the increasing use of other financial mechanisms to deliver EU policies alongside the EU Budget risks undermin
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 82 82. Notes that in its Special report 27/2018 on the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, the Court found that, in a challenging context, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey rapidly mobilised EUR 3 billion to provide a swift response to the refugee crisis, but did not fully achieve its objective of coordinating this response effectively, or sufficient value for money; notes the conclusion of the court that the Facility could have been more effective, and that it could achieve more value for money;
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a decision 4 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 82 82. Notes that in its Special report 27/2018 on the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, the Court found that, in a challenging context, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey rapidly mobilised EUR 3 billion to provide a swift response to the refugee crisis, but did not fully achieve its objective of coordinating this response effectively, or achieving sufficient value for money;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 83 a (new) 83a. Notes that the European Ombudsman has concluded that the Commission should do more to ensure that the EU-Turkey Statement respects EU fundamental rights, and therefore calls on the Commission to systematically include fundamental rights considerations in its decisions under this Facility, including through fundamental rights impact assessments, and continuously report on this to the European Parliament;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 83 a (new) 83a. Regrets that an investigation by EIC European Investigative Collaborations has raised doubts about the use of funds from the instrument which are said to have been used to purchase military equipment for border monitoring; calls on the Commission to thoroughly investigate the matter and to report to Parliament on the results;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 84 b (new) 84b. Notes that the Court indicates that the level of error in spending on ‘Administration’ was not material; nevertheless notes with concern that the error rate increased when compared to the previous year (0.55 % in 2017 and 0.2 % in 2016);
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 84 c (new) 84c. Notes that while the Court did not find any significant weaknesses, it did find recurring areas where there was scope for improvement;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 84 d (new) 84d. Recalls the Parliament Resolution from 08 April 2018 on ‘Integrity policy of the Commission, in particular the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission’, and its key messages;
Amendment 187 #
85. Is not satisfied by the Commission’s reactions to the media and general public immediately after the appointment took place, or by Commission’s explanations offered at the debate during the parliament’s plenary, or by written reaction to Parliament’s resolution from 18 April 2018, which all demonstrate
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 85 85.
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 85 a (new) 85a. Considers the procedure used to appoint the current Secretary-General, which undermines citizens’ trust in the European institutions, to be unacceptable; calls on the current Secretary-General to resign without delay and on the Commission to organise a new appointment procedure in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Regulation;
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a decision 5 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance46 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 85 b (new) 85b. Recalls the findings of the Ombudsman in its recommendation in joint cases on the European Commission’s appointment of a new Secretary General, in which she ‘agrees with (European Parliament) assessment that the double appointment stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law’; the Ombudsman also agreed with the European Parliament that ‘appointments to high level posts like Secretary-General should be made independently of other appointments’;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 85 c (new) 85c. The Ombudsman has found four instances of maladministration and presented conclusions ‘largely similar to those of the European Parliament’ in a case that undermined public trust in the EU, exacerbated by the way Commission reacted to valid concerns on the procedure, namely ‘in an evasive, defensive and legalistic manner’;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 85 d (new) 85d. The Ombudsman presented a final recommendation to the Commission, which ‘should develop a specific procedure for its Secretary General, separate from other senior appointments’;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 86 86.
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 87 87. Welcomes the fact that Commissioner Oettinger organised an inter-institutional round table on senior management selection and appointment on 25 September 2018
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 87 87.
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 88 88. Calls on all European institutions to review, where necessary, nomination procedures, in particular for senior officials, based on the principles of fairness, transparency and equal opportunity, and to report back to the European Parliament by 31 August 2019 on the progress made and take additional measures to improve the transparency of and equality during appointment procedures on the basis of the findings of the European Union’s Ombudsman [Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in joint cases 488/2018/KR and 514/2018/KR on the European Commission’s appointment of a new Secretary-General] and the forthcoming study of the European Parliament on the appointment procedures of the European Union’s institutions;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 88 88. Calls on all European institutions to review
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 89 89.
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 92 92. Finds it unacceptable that, according to the Commission, eight critical or very important recommendations issues by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service over the period 2014 - 2017 are still pending; requests to obtain the progress report on these recommendations implementation until 30 June 2019;
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a decision 1 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance4 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a decision 5 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 32 a (new) Follow up of the Commission discharge for 2016
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 93 a (new) 93a. Is concerned by the Commission’s delay in addressing the growing problem of the disparity in the correction coefficient applied to European civil servants posted to Luxembourg, given that by 2018 this disparity had more than tripled (16.8%) as compared to the threshold of 5% laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, with the resulting erosion of the attractiveness of Luxembourg and unfair discrimination of more than 11000 European Union officials, obliging more than one third of them to reside in neighbouring countries, thus worsening cross-border traffic; urges the EC to follow the example of other bodies such as NSPA (NATO Agency) or EFTA who apply correction coefficients of 13 % and 8.1 % respectively; is troubled by the Commission’s intention to instruct an external company to carry out a study on this correction coefficient, with the aggravating factors of increased costs, delays and questionable methodology, rather than ESTAT, the European body entrusted by the legislator with this kind of task (Annex XI to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Articles 12, 13 and 14);
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 93 a (new) 93a. Notes that in the Communication of the Commission on the follow up of the 2016 discharge, COM (2018) 545, the Commission made a selection of the 394 issues that are raised by the Parliament for the financial year 2016 and did not comment on 108 paragraphs; demands that the Commission replies in detail to all the issues raised by the European Parliament in its resolutions forming an integral part of its decisions on the discharge;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 93 b (new) 93b. Urges the Commission to terminate as soon as possible, as already done in 2018 with the convention with doctors and dentists, the convention with Luxembourg hospitals on over-charging for the treatment of officials and other servants of the European Union in Luxembourg, which costs more than EUR 2 million per year and is in breach of European Directive 2011/24 as regards the equal treatment of European patients, in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in the year 2000 (Ferlini judgment);
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 93 c (new) 93c. Hopes that the main source of savings in the new JMO II building in Luxembourg is not limited to reducing the ratio of square metres per EU official/staff member and that the new arrangement of collaborative spaces guarantees a decent workplace for all European officials/staff;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 93 d (new) 93d. Demands that the Commission carry out the most rigorous and most up- to-date analysis of the impact of the design of open spaces, such as in the new JMO II building, on the loss of productivity due to interruptions and distraction, noise, etc. — a loss in productivity quoted at 28% on average by the Haworth White Paper ‘Designing for Focus Work’;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 94 94. Insisted that the planning, implementation and reporting on the achieved results of the European Union budget should be policy driven;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 94 94. Insist
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 95 95. Insisted that the implementation of the European Union budget should focus on results and achieving broader positive outcomes and that the structure of the EU budget should be modified to provide for measuring progress and performance;
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a decision 5 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 95 95. Insist
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 96 96. Encouraged, in this context, the Commission and the Court to pay greater attention to results and broader outcomes achieved, performance audits and the final impact of policies;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 96 96. Encouraged, in this context, the Commission and the Court to pay greater attention to simplification, results achieved, performance audits and the final impact of policies;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 96 96.
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 96 a (new) 96a. Stresses that any and all audits should be focus on the areas most likely to be subject to error, especially those with the greatest funding levels;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 97 97.
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 98 98. Supported the inclusion of Article 63 in the revised Financial Regulation, which introduces the “single audit scheme” into the shared management, emphasising
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 102 102. Advocated that environmental requirements should be reinforced, that income support should be more fairly allocated with progressive payments scheme favourable to small farms and sustainable and environmentally friendly farming and that the CAP should urgently and definitively be made more attractive to young farmers;
Amendment 218 #
102a. Notes with concern that according to DG AGRI Annual Activity Report (AAR), ‘Big farms managing over 250 ha represent 1.1 % of farms, manage 27.8 % of the total farmland and receive 22.1 % of total direct aid. Among these “big farms”, the majority has between 250 and 500 ha.’1; believes that this is an unjustifiable and unsustainable abuse of scarce EU funds; 1 DG AGRI AAR - p.26
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 102 b (new) 102b. Believes that the Court should audit all Member States and highlight this unfair distribution of EU funds wherever it occurs; believes further that the Commission should take steps to ensure that CAP funds should be distributed in a weighted manner, such that the payments per hectare are on a reducing scale relative to the size of the holding/farm;
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a decision 5 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 103 103. Call
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 103 103. Called on the CAP to become more
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 104 – subparagraph 1 (new) Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 111 111. Insists that this report should analyse the impact of commitments to the size of payments’ backlog of a given Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 113 113. Wonders why the Commission uses two sets of objectives and indicators to measure the performance of financial management: on the one hand, the Commission’s Directors-General evaluate the achievement of the objectives defined in their management plan in their AARs, and, on the other, the Commission measures the performance of spending programmes via the programme statements of operational expenditure annexed to the draft budget; calls on the Commission to make its reporting based on single set of objectives and indicators;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 113 a (new) 113a. Regrets that in its analysis of performance, the Commission focuses more on outputs and less on outcomes; it should be concentrating on a value-for- money approach;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 115 115. Points out that there is no requirement for DGs or the Commission to explain in their performance reports how they used performance information in decision-making; calls on the Commission to include such information in their future performance reports;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 115 115. Points out that there is no requirement for DGs or the Commission to explain in their performance reports how they used performance information in decision-making; calls on the Commission to include such information in their future performance reports;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 115 a (new) 115a. Considers that there is a lack of a clear and exhaustive evaluation of the performance of programmes which would make it possible to identify programmes that did not possess clear added value, in order to carry out a spending review; calls on the Commission to include a detailed assessment in the annual management and performance report indicating which programmes are suffering from inadequate implementation;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 116 – subparagraph 1 (new) Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a decision 6 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 116 a (new) 116a. Points out that impact assessments are an indispensable part of the policy cycle; regrets that on occasion, legislative proposals made by the Commission lack a comprehensive impact assessment; further regrets that in some cases, the Commission has failed to take fundamental rights into account; reiterates that impact assessments should be based on evidence, performed by an independent party and at all times comply with fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 116 a (new) 116a. Observes that it has not always been made clear whether ‘political responsibility’ encompasses responsibility for the directorates-general, or is distinct from it;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 116 b (new) 116b. Reiterates the findings of the European Court of Auditors’ 2017 audit, indicating that the ‘Commission should make better use of its own performance information and develop an internal culture more focused on performance’; consequently, calls on the Commission to incorporate performance based budgeting in their whole policy cycle;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 117 – point f a (new) fa) introduce or improve measures and incentives to foster a greater focus on performance in the Commission’s internal culture, taking into account in particular opportunities offered by the revised Financial Regulation, the Budget Focused on Results initiative, performance reporting for on-going projects, and other sources;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 117 – point f a (new) fa) strengthen the focus on performance in the Commission’s work;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 117 – point f b (new) fb) develop data processing methods for the vast quantities of data created with performance reporting with the goal of giving a timely, fair and true picture on achievements; insists that performance reporting should be used to take corrective action when objectives of programs are not met;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 118. Recommends that the Court continue to provide a separate chapter for security and citizenship in its annual report and to deepen its analysis in this regard, as
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 118. Recommends that the Court continue to provide a separate chapter for security and citizenship in its annual report and to deepen its analysis in this regard, as the public and political interest in the security and migration part of the Union budget is much higher than its financial share;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 a (new) 118a. Urges the Commission to give an overview on VAT overcompensation in EU funded cohesion and rural development projects which harms the financial interests of the EU and the European taxpayers;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 43 a (new) ECA’s recurrent reporting on the performance of the EU action
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a decision 6 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 b (new) 118 b. Welcomes the proposal made by the ECA in its consultation paper on ‘Recurrent reporting on the performance of EU action’ to annually publish, in November of year N+1, an evaluation of the performance of EU action, covering a detailed review of the performance information reported by the Commission in the article 318 TFEU evaluation report; insists once again that this report should contain in a second part a detailed review of the synthesis of the financial management of the Commission as stated in the second part of the Annual Management and performance report;
Amendment 241 #
118c. Recalls that the ultimate objective of a more performance focussed audit analysis should be to put in place a global and consistent cost/benefit model assessing the implementation of the European budget;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 d (new) 118d. Insists that the ECA should improve the coordination between project level performance assessments carried out in the context of the Statement of Assurance work and the remainder of its performance work, through the reporting, in particular, of the main conclusions of its special reports in sectoral chapters of its Annual report;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 e (new) 118e. Requests the ECA to provide the discharge authorities with an assessment in terms of both compliance and performance, of each European policies, following chapter by chapter the budget headings in the ECA annual report;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 118 f (new) 118f. Insists that the Court puts in place an extended follow-up of its performance audit recommendations;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 119 119. Is of the opinion that the Commission’s methodology for estimating its amount at risk or errors has improved over the years but that individual DGs’ estimations of the level of irregular spending are not based on a consistent methodology and that the AARs of the DGs and the AMPR use a complex terminology that
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 119 a (new) 119a. Regrets that the figure for error- rate-correction has not been published - this leads to legitimate questions over how the final figure was arrived at;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 120 120.
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 122 122.
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 123 123. In this regard, asks the Commission to further harmonise its methods for calculating error rates taking into account the different management modes and legal bases while making the error rates comparable and to clearly distinguish the amount at risk with and without integrated financial corrections; requests also that the Commission present information about the corrective capacity for recovering unduly payments from the EU budget;
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a decision 7 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance68 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 123 123. In this regard, asks the Commission to harmonise its methods for calculating error rates with the Court and to clearly distinguish the amount at risk with and without integrated financial corrections; requests also that the Commission present information about the corrective capacity for recovering unduly payments from the EU budget;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 123 123. In this regard, asks the Commission to further harmonise its methods for calculating error rates and to clearly distinguish the amount at risk with and without integrated financial corrections; requests also that the Commission present information about the corrective capacity for recovering unduly payments from the EU budget;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 125 125. Asks the Commission and the Member States once again to put in place sound procedures to confirm the timing,
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 126 – subparagraph 1 (new) Notes that if the authorising officers by delegation, when disclosing the specific areas of their expenditure for which they issue a reservation refer to the materiality threshold of 2 % only in the context of the ‘residual error rate’, they finally run the risk to underestimate the risk of error;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 126 a (new) 126a. Is worried - as in previous years - how the Directorates-General calculate the error rate and about the lack of reference to the discharge year 2017, which undermines the credibility of the Commission’s figures, the discharge procedure and amounts to deliberately keeping the error rate low: (a) the Residual Error Rate of DG DEVCO and DG NEAR does not refer to a sample of all payments for ongoing projects, but only to closed contracts, for which all controls and checks have been applied with the consequence that only pre-2017 payments, for which discharge has already been granted, have been analysed; as a result, the error rate of the Court of Auditors, collected by another method, is the only meaningful one; (b) DG HOME only reports, for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund/Internal Security Fund, an error rate from which financial corrections have already been deducted; Parliament is therefore unable to understand which corrections have been made and which error rate we really face; (c) Member States´ Audit Authorities communicate to DG REGIO the error rates for Structural Funds after deduction of corrections which does not give a real picture of the situation of EU projects on the spot; (d) states that for 2017 the Commission presented at least 13 different error rates for the programming period 2007-2013 and 2014-2020; this makes reporting unclear and confusing;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 126 a (new) 126a. Stresses that the Commission did not disclose in its AMPR 2017 the scope of the reservations that was reported on in the AMPRs of preceding years;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 126 b (new) 126b. Is worried that the Annual Management and Performance Report compares very different figures and is therefore misleading: whereas the Court´s estimated level of error is an error rate at payment and without deduction of corrections, the Commissions global amount at risk reported in the AMPR is calculated after deduction of corrections; finds the comparisons by the Commission inacceptable; calls on the Commission to separate error rates and corrections and to issue reservations before corrections and not only after to correctly estimate the risk of error;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 126 c (new) 126c. Supports the Court of Auditors in calculating the error rate without taking corrections into account; calls on the Commission to indicate error rates without corrections in all annual activity reports and to give a clear picture on corrections due to errors;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 129 129. Notes that the slow absorption of funds remains a problem in some countries; is therefore of the opinion that it is appropriate to leave the “Task Force for Better Implementation” in place; notes also that the Commission has created a “Catching-up Regions” initiative; in this context
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 46 Conflicts of interest and fight against fraud and corruption
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a decision 7 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 46 Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 129 a (new) 129a. Recalls the European Parliament Resolution of 13th December 2018 on conflicts of interest and the protection of the EU budget in the Czech Republic; reiterates its concern about the Czech Republic’s non-compliance with Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation regarding the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister and his links to the Agrofert Group;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 129 b (new) 129b. Recalls the letter Commissioner Oettinger sent to the Czech Prime Minister, in which it is stated that the Commission considers that his position qualifies as a situation which may objectively be perceived as a conflict of interest and that action to remedy this situation is urgently needed; in addition points out that the recommendation proposed by the Commission - notably Prime Minister withdrawn from the Governing Council for European Structural and Investment Funds, and his abstention from participating in decisions which concerns his interests - was qualified as insufficient while remaining Prime Minister, by the Legal Service of the Commission in its opinion;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 129 c (new) Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 130 130. Deplores any kind of
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 130 a (new) 130a. Calls on the Commission to enforce European Parliament´s resolution of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, Commission Recommendation regarding the rule of law in Poland complementary to Commission Recommendations (EU) 2016/1374, (EU) 2017/146 and (EU) 2017/1520 and Reasoned Proposal in Accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union regarding the Rule of Law in Poland of 20 December 2017;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 130 a (new) 130a. In this regard calls on the Commission to fully investigates the Conflict of Interests of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic as demanded by the parliament’s resolution of December 2018;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 131 131. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 269 #
131a. Expresses its concern about the conflict of interests in the use of agricultural funds in the Czech Republic, where the Prime Minister is the owner of Agrofert, which receives agricultural grants from the Union budget; notes with concern that Agrofert also owns a communication company; considers this conflict of interests to be unacceptable and calls on the Commission to conclude without delay the investigation of the case and to inform Parliament of the action taken;
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a decision 7 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 a (new) 132a. Notes with deep regret that the leaked letter from the Commissioner Oettinger to the Czech PM Mr Babiš offers to the latter one a leeway in his conflict of interest situation, instead of putting the protection of the financial interests of the European Union on the first place, by proposing him to abstain from participation on decisions that concern his personal interest; considers this to be an absolutely insufficient course of action and demands that the Commission takes appropriate measures in this matter that will not only protect the financial interests of the Union but that will set a precedent for similar future cases based on applicable legal framework;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 a (new) 132a. Calls on the Commission to also conduct a regular assessment of the anti corruption policies in the Member States; and to publish an annual report with key findings and recommendations; also highlights that an independent external assessment of the anti corruption policies of the EU institutions themselves should be conducted on a regular basis with a view to eliminating corruption risks;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 a (new) 132a. Welcomes the fact that the Commission publishes meetings of Commissioners with interest representatives; regrets, however that the subject matter discussed during the meetings is not included in the Register, calls on the Commission to complete the register by including the content of the meetings;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 b (new) 132b. Notes that according to the Corruption Perceptions Index 2018, the situation in a large number of Member States has not improved or has even deteriorated; calls on the Commission to finally submit to Parliament a follow-up to its anticorruption report of 2015, describing, preferably on an annual basis, the situation with respect to anti- corruption policies in the Member States as well as in the European Institutions;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 c (new) 132c. Underlines that former Commissioners shall not lobby Commissioners or their staff on behalf of their own business, that of their employer client, on matters for which they were responsible within their portfolio for a period of two years after ceasing to hold their office; calls on the Commission to bring this cooling off period in line with that for the President, i.e. three years;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 d (new) 132d. Stresses that the opinions of the Ethical Committee on conflicts of interest must be proactively produced by the Committee, especially for Commissioners who leave the service; furthermore, stresses that the composition of the Ethical Committee should be strengthened with members from international organisations, such as OECD, and NGOs with expertise in the field of integrity policies;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 132 e (new) 132e. Recalls that in its resolution of 18 April 2018 on the Integrity Policy of the Commission, Parliament expressed its concerns with the appointment procedures for its senior officials; urges the Commission to continue the discussion with Parliament on the implementation of the various recommendations contained in Parliament´s resolution;
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a decision 7 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a decision 8 Citation 4 — having regard to the Commission’s 2017 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget (COM(2018)0457)
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a decision 8 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance78 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a decision 8 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. Whereas when the Parliament grants discharge to the Commission it
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Notes that in 2017 the Union budget was the fourth year of implementation of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which amounted to EUR 159,8 billion, including six amending budgets, and that the allocations in different areas were:
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that the Court audited transactions worth a total of 100,2 billion euros, which represents less than two- thirds of the total budget for 2017;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Regrets that in the case of all four of DG DEVCO, DG REGIO, DG NEAR and DG HOME, Residual Error Rate calculations (RER) have been used, which are all related to pre-2017 payments and are thus not only irrelevant, but misleading in terms of the 2017 actual payments error-rate;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Points out that all this renders the Commission’s claim in its Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR) questionable, at least, and misleading, that ‘The Commission is confident that the overall amount at risk remains below 2 %. In fact, the overall level of estimated error continues its downward trend in 2017, with the estimated overall amount at risk at payment now even down to 1.7 % and the estimated overall amount at risk at closure down to 0.6 %’;1 1 AMPR 2017 - p.75.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that the methodology used to calculate the error-rate for 2017 is flawed, at best, with Residual Error-Rates from previous years being used by four DGs at least (DG REGIO, DG DEVCO, DG NEAR and DG HOME), and that the audit focus for 2017 as opposed to previous years was on areas of predictably low error-rate, all of which renders the final claimed error-rate open to serious question;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Regrets that while the Court did provide error-rates under MFF headings of Administration expenditure, Cohesion, Competitiveness, and Natural Resources, it didn’t do so for Security & Citizenship, and Global Europe;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Notes that where payments were made on the basis of cost reimbursements (where the EU reimburses eligible costs for eligible activities), the Court estimates the level of error at 3.7 % (4.8 % in 2016), whilst the error rate for entitlement payments (which are based on meeting certain conditions) was below the materiality threshold of 2 %; regrets that the error rate is not clearly quantified for the entitlement payments;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Regrets that the Court estimated the level of error for entitlement-based expenditure excluding some rural development schemes and asks that they be included in future;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the Court audited transactions worth a total of EUR 100,2 billion and that the area of ‘Natural resources’ makes up the largest share of the overall population (57 %), while in contrast to previous years, the weight of the area of ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ is relatively small (around 8 %); regrets that the Court did not examine the level of error in Heading 3, ‘Security and Citizenship’ and Heading 4, ‘Global Europe’; considers that, even if the figures for these headings are minor, they are of particular political importance, and calls on the Court to provide data on the error rate for these headings;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points out that the Commission itself has noted that the improved error- rate performance for 2017 was due in large part to the score from that ‘Natural Resources’ area1; 1. AMPR p. 81 - ‘Compared to 2016, the main change is the significant decrease in Cohesion, Migration and Fisheries. In this policy area, the current 2014-2020 programmes are coming up to speed, which have an inherent lower risk given the newly introduced annual clearance of accounts and the 10 % retention mechanism on interim payments until all controls and corrective measures are implemented (see under ‘progress made’ in Section 2.2)’.
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Observes that the figures for the error rate calculated by the Commission and those calculated by the Court of Auditors are based on different principles; notes that the concept of residual error could create a bias in the data, as corrections for earlier periods are taken into account; calls on the Commission to present the data in a manner consistent with the methodology adopted by the Court and including the estimated corrections expected;
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Regrets that in calculating the error-rate the Court does not mention the original level of error that would have been applied if correction measures were not implemented;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Stresses that as was done in 2016 (when it was merely mentioned), the estimated level of error for cohesion does not include a quantification of 2017 disbursements to financial instruments; recalls that since the eligibility of structural funds for the period 2007-13 was postponed to the end of March 2017, the disbursements to financial instruments for the first three months of 2017 should have been included into the calculation of the error-rate; regrets that the Court has not mentioned this anywhere in the Annual Report; calls on the Court to take on board all the irregularities having a financial impact when determining the most likely error- rate, and calls on the Commission to table the necessary legislative proposal to put an end to this irregularity;
Amendment 52 #
Commission internal governance tools
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 d (new) 7d. Recalls that the distinction made by the Commission between the ‘political responsibility of Commissioners’ and the ‘operational responsibility of directors- general’ means that it has not always been made clear whether ‘political responsibility’ encompasses responsibility for the directorates-general, or is distinct from it;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 e (new) 7e. Reiterates its call on the Commission to produce an annual statement on governance and on internal control, covering in particular: (a) a description of the internal governance tools of the Commission; (b) an assessment of the operational and strategic risk activities during the year and a mid- and long-term fiscal sustainability statement;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 – introductory part 11. Expresses serious concern that these weaknesses may affect the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to:
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 – point a a) improve its monitoring of import flows, including making wider use of reasonable and legal data mining techniques to analyse unusual patterns and their underlying reasons, and act promptly to ensure that due amounts of TOR are made available;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes with concern that for the second year in a row, DG Budget set a reservation on the value of TOR collected by the UK, due to the country’s failure to make available to the EU budget evaded customs duties on textiles and footwear imports;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes with concern that for the second year in a row, DG Budget set a reservation on the value of TOR collected by the UK, due to the country’s failure to make available to
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Notes that for the second year in a row, DG Budget set a reservation on the value of TOR collected by the UK, due to the country’s failure to make available to the EU budget
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the infringement procedure initiated by the Commission on 8 March 2018 as a follow-up to the UK customs fraud case, but regrets that it took the Commission more than 7 years to launch this procedure after its request to the UK in 2011 to set risk profiles for under-valued textiles and footwear imports from China; points out that the similar fraud networks operate in other Member States avoiding paying at least 2.5 billion EUR in custom duties since 2015; reaffirms the clear need for more cooperation between custom services in the Member States to avoid the harm of EU and national budgets and of EU product standards; demands information from the Commission which products reach the internal market without respecting EU product standards;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the infringement procedure initiated by the Commission on 8 March 2018 as a follow-up to the UK customs fraud case, but - especially in light of Brexit and the increased difficulties this will impose on any collection process - regrets that it took the Commission more than
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the infringement procedure initiated by the Commission on 8 March 2018 as a follow-up to the UK customs fraud case, but regrets that it took the Commission more than 7 years to
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Regrets the discrepancies in the level of customs checks between the various Member States; highlights the importance of harmonising checks at all points of entry into the Customs Union and calls on the Member States to ensure coordinated, uniform and efficient implementation of the border system, discouraging divergent practices between Member States to reduce the number of existing loopholes in customs control systems; calls on the Commission, in this respect, to examine the various customs control practices in the EU and their impact on trade diversion, focusing in particular on EU customs practices at external borders, and to develop reference analyses and information on customs operations and the procedures used in the Member States;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Points out that in 2017, 99,3 % of the amount available for commitments was implemented (EUR 158,7 billion), but that the executed payments were EUR 124,7 billion, considerably lower than budgeted, mainly due to Member States submitting fewer claims than anticipated for the multiannual programmes of the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); regrets the low absorption rate, partly due to the late adoption of the previous MFF and the sectoral programmes , which could create future risks for the implementation of the budget with an accumulation of extraordinary payments at the end of the programming period;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Points out that in 2017, 99
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is deeply concerned that in 2017 the outstanding budgetary commitments increased to a new record of EUR 267
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that in 2017 the combination of high commitments and low payments increased outstanding budgetary commitments increased to a new record of EUR 267
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Calls on the Commission to present a thorough analysis of why some regions still exhibit low fund absorption rates and to assess specific ways of remedying the structural problems underlying those imbalances; calls on the Commission to increase on-the-spot technical assistance to improve absorption capacity in Member States experiencing difficulties in this regard;
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a decision 2 Citation 7 — having regard to the statement of assurance12 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Recalls that the Court reported that the issue of whether to count special instruments within the ceilings for payment appropriations has not yet been resolved; this could represent an additional risk of a payment backlog;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Notes the increase in the use of financial instruments, which represents a risk for transparency and accountability;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 c (new) 15c. Agrees with the Court on the need for more detailed reporting on Financial Instruments, and regrets (as does the Court) that the last available report on Financial Instruments under Share Management (FISM) for the 2014-2020 MFF period is the report as at the end of the 2016, published in December 20171; 1 2017 annual report, paragraph 2.35
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 d (new) 15d. Regrets that in the above mentioned report, it is evident that by the start of 2017, after three years of the current MFF, less than 10 % of the total ESI Funding available through FISM had so far reached recipients to finance productive investments and activities1; 1 2017 Annual Report, paragraph 2.34
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Calls on the Commission to improve the accuracy of the payment forecast and to use the lessons learned from the previous programming period in order to deal with the accumulated backlog of payments and avoid its negative effect on the next MFF and to present the Action Plan on reducing the payments backlog during the 2020 - 2027 multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Regrets that European standards - such as environmental, food quality or safety standards, standards for animal welfare, privacy, agricultural subsidies or rules against money laundering - are often not adequately implemented or respected by Member States due to insufficient supervision of national authorities; recalls the Landscape Review of the European Court of Auditors on the Commission’s responsibility to monitor the implementation of EU legislation; urges the Commission to establish a Union inspection body to strengthen the Commission’s oversight and increase its competences for supervision of the implementation of Union legislation in order to improve monitoring of Member States’ compliance with Union legislation and to enforce, where needed, European standards;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Regrets that the Union did not succeeded to manage and respond adequately to both the financial and socioeconomic crisis of 2008 (the case of Greece being an example given the recent apologies of the Commission expressed to this Member States) and the refugee crisis of 2015, which led to further deepening of divisions within the Union between North/South and East/West, to increased inequalities, as well as to growing mistrust among Member States;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Points out that the College of the Commissioners does not produce an annual statement on governance, a practice that is commonly adopted by Member States; calls for this practice to be made compulsory from the beginning of the next College of Commissioners’ term;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Regrets that expenditure has failed to comply with the parameter requiring 20% to be allocated to climate action; notes with concern that this objective will not be respected in the 2014-2020 programming period; calls for a strong commitment by the Commission to support environmental and climate action, especially in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Observes
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Observes
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Noticed that the AAR of the DG RTD mentioned 6 different error rates, three for FP7 and three for Horizon 2020; stresses that such an approach does not facilitate transparency and accountability; accepts however that two different programmes under two different financial periods were concerned;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Fully supports the position of the Court that its mandate does not imply reporting on individual Member States but presenting an audit opinion on the legality and regularity of the implementation of the Union’s budget as a whole;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. Nevertheless, wants to draw attention through the reservations issued by the Commission services during the normal annual Discharge procedures, that all and every Member States perform differently in using the diversity of EU funds and that there are always areas where improvement is required; notes in this regard that for 2017 reservations were issued by: - DG AGRI concerning: AT, BE, BG, HR, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, HU, IT, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE, UK ; - DG MARE concerning: BG, CZ, IT, NL, RO; - DG REGIO concerning: BG, HR, CZ, ET, FI, FR, DE, HU, IT, LV, PL, RO, SK, SI, SE, UK; - DG EMPL concerning: AU, CZ, FR, DE, HU, IT, PL, RO, SK, UK - DG HOME concerning: FI, DE, GR, UK;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. calls on the DG RTD to publish its country specific recommendations in the AAR of DG RTD;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 c (new) 22c. In this sense, notes that although the services of the Commission did not issue reservations in 2017 for IE, LUX, M, CY, LT, in 2016 they issued for DG AGRI: IE, LT, M, CY, for DG EMPL: CY and for DG REGIO: IE;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. Notes that the residual error rates calculated by the Court (3 %) and the Commission (1.39 %) differ considerably;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Notes the progress in project selection and that by January 2018, 673 800 projects have been selected for support by the ERDF, the CF, the European Social Fund (ESF), and the Youth Employment Initiative, amounting to EUR 260 billion or 54 % of the total financing available for the 2014-2020 period; notes that the rate of project selection has reached 70 % of the total financing available at the end of 2018 and is similar to the selection rate at the same point in the last period;
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Notes with satisfaction that, in the area of energy efficiency and renewables, more than 2,000 MW of additional capacity of renewable energy production was created, and greenhouse emissions were reduced by close to 3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents until the end of 2016; stresses though that more must be done in order to achieve goals from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Welcomes in particular, with regard to structural funds, the Court’s audit work on preventive measures and financial corrections, the ex-ante conditionalities, the performance reserve and absorption;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Apart from the areas of privatisation of public services and infrastructure, welcomes the progress with the priority project list in Greece;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Expresses concern that the Court identified and quantified 36 errors in its sample of 217 transactions for 2017, which audit authorities in Member States had not detected, and that the number and the impact of these errors indicate persisting weaknesses with the regularity of the expenditure declared by managing authorities; regrets that the errors found reflect persistent shortcomings in the regularity of the expenditure declared by the managing authorities and that the Court identified weaknesses in the sampling methodologies of the audit authorities;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Expresses concern that the Court identified and quantified 36 errors in its sample of 217 transactions for 2017, which audit authorities in Member States had not detected, and that the number and the impact of these errors indicate persisting weaknesses with the regularity of the expenditure declared by managing
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28.
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Deplores the numerous error rates presented by the Commission, which make it difficult to evaluate data; notes that the residual error rate identified by the Court differs significantly from the residual error rate calculated by the Commission;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Observes with concern that as of September 2018 there are still 7 non- completed action plans related to ex-ante conditionalities and that one suspension of interim payments has been adopted and other two are under inter-service consultation for adoption; regrets that the fulfilment of the ex-ante conditionalities proved to be administratively burdensome for managing authorities and one of the reasons for delayed absorption; appreciates in particular the targeted support provided to programme authorities and increased level of implementation reached thanks to the “Catching up Regions” and the “Task force for Better Implementation” initiatives taken by the Commission; asks the Commission to ensure that in the next programming period, the identified weaknesses and problems related to fulfilment of enabling conditions, which will replace ex-ante conditionalities, are properly addressed;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32.
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Calls on the Commission to take into account, in the case of large-scale infrastructure projects, all relevant risks of environmental impact and to finance only those which have demonstrated real added value for the local population and from an environmental, social and economic point of view; stresses the importance of strictly monitoring possible risks of corruption and fraud in this context and the need to carry out careful and independent ex-ante and ex-post assessments with regard to the projects to be financed;
source: 634.491
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/0 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-626769_EN.html
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/6/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PECH-AD-628713_EN.html
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-630608_EN.html
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TRAN-AD-629640_EN.html
|
docs/11 |
|
docs/12 |
|
docs/12/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-630541_EN.html
|
docs/14 |
|
docs/15 |
|
docs/15/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EMPL-AD-629766_EN.html
|
docs/17 |
|
docs/18 |
|
docs/18/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-AD-631872_EN.html
|
events/0/date |
Old
2018-06-28T00:00:00New
2018-06-27T00:00:00 |
events/5/docs |
|
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
committees/18/rapporteur |
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE626.769
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.713&secondRef=02
|
docs/6/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.608&secondRef=02
|
docs/7/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.640
|
docs/8/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE627.682&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AD-627682_EN.html |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.678&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CULT-AD-628678_EN.html |
docs/10/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.539&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AD-630539_EN.html |
docs/11/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.541&secondRef=02
|
docs/12/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.594&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-629594_EN.html |
docs/13/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.381&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/FEMM-AD-630381_EN.html |
docs/14/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.766&secondRef=02
|
docs/16/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE634.491New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-634491_EN.html |
docs/17/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE631.872&secondRef=03
|
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary |
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/4/docs |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/6 |
|
events/6/type |
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Decision by Parliament |
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE626.769New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE626.769 |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.713&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.713&secondRef=02 |
docs/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.608&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.608&secondRef=02 |
docs/7/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.640New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.640 |
docs/8/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE627.682&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE627.682&secondRef=02 |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.678&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.678&secondRef=02 |
docs/10/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.539&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.539&secondRef=02 |
docs/11/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.541New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.541&secondRef=02 |
docs/12/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.594&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.594&secondRef=02 |
docs/13/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.381&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.381&secondRef=02 |
docs/14/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.766&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE629.766&secondRef=02 |
docs/16/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE634.491New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE634.491 |
docs/17/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE631.872&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE631.872&secondRef=03 |
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0110_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0110_EN.html |
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20190326&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20190326&type=CRE |
events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0242_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0242_EN.html |
events/7 |
|
procedure/final |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official JournalNew
Procedure completed |
docs/0 |
|
docs/0 |
|
docs/11/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.541&secondRef=02New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.541 |
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2019-0110&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0110_EN.html |
events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0242New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0242_EN.html |
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 |
|
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 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
CONT/8/14083New
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
activities/1 |
|
committees/1/date |
2018-09-03T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
committees/9/date |
2018-08-30T00:00:00
|
committees/9/rapporteur |
|
committees/16/date |
2018-08-29T00:00:00
|
committees/16/rapporteur |
|
other/0 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
CONT/8/14083
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
committees/5/date |
2018-07-11T00:00:00
|
committees/5/rapporteur |
|
committees/4/date |
2018-04-11T00:00:00
|
committees/4/rapporteur |
|
committees/4/shadows |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|