2020/2126(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the study entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’ and emphasises the importance of consolidating and harmonising EU reporting systems in order to have the knowledge that makes it possible to verify and compare ownership structures from one Member State to another; stresses also that reporting systems for CAP and cCohesion pPolicy funds should contain information on all final beneficiaries, including holding companies, parent structures, whether headquartered within or outside the EU, and ultimate beneficial owners;

Amendment 11 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the study entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’ and emphasises the importance of consolidating, streamlining and harmonising EU reporting systems; stresses also that reporting systems for CAP and cohesion policy funds should contain information on final beneficiaries so that an evidence-based assessment can be made of the fair and proportionate distribution of funds;

Amendment 12 #

Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Voices concern, however, at the fact that nationals of non-EU countries are among the largest beneficiaries of CAP funds; calls for the allocation of those funds to be subject to a nationality criterion;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP~~; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against oligarch structur~~ which aims at preventing individuals and companies from receiving support from the CAP when their business is not agricultural or is only marginally so; emphasises that although the number of fraud and irregularities related to EU revenues and expenditure has been reduced considerably over the recent years, the protection of the Union’s financial interest, preservation of EU’s credibility and impartiality in programme spending should remain a priority for the Union and its Member States;

Amendment 14 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against oligarch structures; such as the lack of information and transparency on ultimate beneficiaries and keeping up the voluntary nature of capping which hinders the fairer distribution of agricultural funds;

Amendment 15 #

Veronika VRECIONOVÁ, Ladislav ILČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against oligarch structures; and in the well-meant attempt to outroot the abuse CAP funds by oligarchs, warns against an increased administrative burden on genuine farmers;

Amendment 16 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Petri SARVAMAA, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP is the mandatory instrument, that should lead to greater transparency and does not increase bureaucracy for SMEs; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against oligarch structures;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against criminal and oligarch structures;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against oligarch structures; notes that this is largely because of a lack of transparency affecting all final beneficiaries of the CAP budget as a whole (including holding companies and ultimate beneficial owners), and in particular those upstream in the supply chain, as at present there is transparency only as regards farmers applying for CAP funds who complete an annual declaration;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP; emphasises~~, however, the lack~~ a degree of progress in the fight against oligarch structures, in particular the requirement that has been introduced for Member States to notify the Commission about the identity of parent undertakings which own CAP-supported agricultural land;

Amendment 2 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that common agricultural policy (CAP) funds make up a significant proportion of the 2021-2027 EU budget ~~and that there is therefore a responsibility~~. Reiterates that both the Commission and Member States share responsibilities for their implementation, management and proper spending. Emphasises that they must put in place proper safeguards to protect them CAP funds against any type of misuse; and to prevent corruption;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Underlines the importance of stronger cooperation and coordination between the Member States and the relevant EU bodies engaged in the fight against fraud and misuse of funding (OLAF, the European Court of Auditors, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)); in addition, calls on the Member States to ensure that the competent national authorities are sufficiently funded and well trained to effectively detect and address fraud and misuse of CAP funds;

Amendment 21 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Simone SCHMIEDTBAUER, Christine SCHNEIDER

3a. Takes the view that the current unfair distribution of CAP support, resulting in the cumulation of support and in farm expansion, is creating an environment conducive to conflicts of interest and to fraud; regrets that the capping of support and other forms of redistribution under the CAP have not been made compulsory for Member States after 2023; considers that a unique opportunity has been missed, for which the Council bears responsibility in particular, to make the support system fairer, more equitable and less subject to risks of conflicts of interest and fraud;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments~~Underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level; encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds; regrets that the capping for the new CAP remains voluntary and calls on the Member States to apply the capping provisions on direct payments as the best measure against oligarchs; strongly emphasizes that direct payments in CAP are, unlike other EU subsidies, unique due to missing mandatory ceiling leading to land concentration; calls on the EC to address these issues at EU level;

Amendment 23 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need for more targeted support towards smaller and medium-sized farms with special attention to young farmers at Member State level; Encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds ~~and~~; regrets that the capping in the new CAP remains voluntary and calls on the Member States to apply the capping provisions on direct payments;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ERegrets that in one of the main aims of the CAP namely to benefit and support those working the land there is still significant room for improvement, therefore in order to utilise fully the current limited opportunities encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments;

Amendment 25 #

Carmen AVRAM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to take decisive action to increase the external convergence under Pillar I of the CAP as another tool to combat unfair distribution of EU money among Member States;

Amendment 26 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. EUnderlines the need to improve the balance between small and large beneficiaries and ensure more targeted support at Member State level; encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Encourages~~Calls on the Member States to use the different redistributive tools, going beyond the mandatory requirements, for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments;

Amendment 28 #

Elsi KATAINEN, Emma WIESNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments, including at the level of parent structures, so that larger holding companies cannot circumvent capping by artificially splitting themselves up into smaller entities;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reminds, that the farm structure vary between different Member States a lot; therefore Member States should have a large range of volyntary measures available instead of capping to redistribute payments;

Amendment 3 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Petri SARVAMAA, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that common agricultural policy (CAP) funds make up a significant proportion of the 2021-2027 EU budget and that there is therefore a responsibility to protect them against any type of misuse, which is detrimental to the image of what is a public policy and to the interests of the European citizens who contribute to that budget;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Emphasizes that the ARACHNE is a key instrument for transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out that the Commission has developed and made available to all Member States the ARACHNE system, an IT tool for collecting and linking data (data mining), in order to establish fraud risk indicators in connection with the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF);

Amendment 32 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Petri SARVAMAA, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Points out that ARACHNE is not yet fully fit for purpose for all CAP actions, in particular direct payments and area-based interventions under the second pillar, and that in 2025 the Commission will submit a report assessing how it is used and interoperates with the various national systems, with a view to across- the-board utilisation by Member States;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the mandatory use of the ARACHNE system by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds and where such funds end up, as well as the mandatory use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System for CAP funds in an effort to enhance transparency on the use of taxpayers’ money; the Commission should create a new comprehensive real-time monitoring system, including existing instruments such as Arachne, which provides an accurate picture of the distribution and fair allocation of EU funds, and the ability to track and aggregate distributed funds; this system should include information on the links between companies and beneficial owners;

Amendment 34 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the mandatory use of ~~the ARACHNE system by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP fund~~all available IT tools, such as ARACHNE, the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) and the Irregularities Management System (IMS) by all Member States, especially for funds under CAP and cohesion policy, in order to achieve more transparency and to effectively and efficiently identify the problematic economic operators and wthe~~re such funds end up, as well as the mandatory use of the Early Detec~~ private individuals or natural persons linked to them; emphasises that the interoperability and harmonisation of Arachne, EDES, institutional and ~~Exclusion System for CAP funds~~ national databases is crucial for ensuring an eff~~ort to en~~ective information exchancge ~~transparency on the use of taxpayers’ money~~aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the EU budget;

Amendment 35 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Calls for the mandato~~Notes the voluntary use of t he ARACHNE system ~~by Member States~~, but underlines that this is not yet sufficient, calls for the preparation by the Commission and the mandatory use by Member States of a data mining system in order to achieve more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds and where such funds end up, as well as the mandatory use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System for CAP funds in an effort to enhance transparency on the use of taxpayers’ money and to reinforce the protection of the Union’s financial interest; underlines the importance the data mining approach for the 1st pillar as well;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Calls for the mandatory~~Underlines that the use of the ARACHNE system by the Member States ~~in order to~~could help achieveing more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds; a~~nd where such funds end up, as well as the mandatory~~waits, therefore, the Commission’s report by year 2025, assessing the use of the single data-mining tool and its interoperability with a view to its generalised use by Member States; furthermore, underlines the need to strengthen the use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System for CAP funds in an effort to enhance transparency on the use of ~~taxpayers’ money~~EU funds;

Amendment 37 #

Veronika VRECIONOVÁ, Ladislav ILČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Calls for the mandatory use of the ARACHNE system by Member States in or~~Points out that use of the ARACHNE data extraction programme will be voluntary at the start of the 2023- 2027 programming period, but that there will be a legislative proposal by 2025 in order to require Member States to use it; considers t~~o achieve~~hat mandatory use might be conducive to more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds and where such funds end up, as well as the mandatory use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System for CAP funds in an effort to enhance transparency on the use of taxpayers’ money;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the mandatory use of the ARACHNE system by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on ultimathe beneficia~~ries of~~l owners and individual beneficiaries belonging to parent companies in connection with CAP funds and where such funds end up, as well as the mandatory use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System for CAP funds in an effort to enhance transparency on the use of taxpayers’ money;

Amendment 4 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that common agricultural policy (CAP) funds make up a significant proportion of the 2021-2027 EU budget and that there is therefore a heightened responsibility to protect them against any type of misuse;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls on the Commission to request EU member states collect and publish the data in a transparent and user-friendly manner (including the machine readable format) on the EU agriculture funds payments in order to enable public control of final beneficiaries and the use of the EU funds;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Notes that government sale or lease auctions are used by oligarch structures to purchase land, exceeding state limits on maximum hectare purchases, enabled by lax checks on such transactions;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Regrets that the mandatory use of the ARACHNE data extraction tool was rejected during the CAP reform negotiations;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Notes that, to date, ARACHNE has tended to be used in connection with project-related expenditure; calls therefore on the Commission to develop a similar approach as regards the data mining tool in order to increase transparency relating to the remaining CAP funds, in particular first-pillar payments aggregated by parent company and ultimate beneficial owner;

Amendment 44 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Petri SARVAMAA, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to 6. strengthen its fraud prevention and detection capabilities; in this regard, welcomes the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), with its mandate to investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment crimes against the EU budget, as an important asset in the fight against fraud and organised crime in the EU. Regrets, however, that the Commission established a staffing plan for the EPPO that does not allow it to efficiently fulfil its mandate; underlines that adequate staffing is necessary so that the EPPO can realise its tasks. Strongly calls on the Commission to increase the budget and qualified staff available to the EPPO so that it can realise its full potential in the fight against crime;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to strengthen its fraud prevention and detection capabilities; calls on the Commission to collect information on all subsidies received from the first and second pillars of the CAP and to aggregate the total amount that a natural person receives either directly through direct payments or indirectly as the beneficial owner of legal persons that are beneficiaries of CAP payments (direct payments and rural development payments) for prevent oligarchs from abusing these subsidies;

Amendment 46 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Irène TOLLERET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to strengthen its fraud prevention and detection capabilities including strengthening the reporting/signalling from individuals and stakeholders and developing and making better use of IT fraud detection tools;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Urges the Commission to strengthen its fraud prevention and detection capabilitie~~Considers that the introduction of the new CAP delivery model, involving a significant transfer of tasks from the European level to national administrations in connection with the management and control of EU agricultural funds, is not without risk to the CAP's financial credibility; considers that Parliament has introduced safeguards into the interinstitutional agreement on CAP reform in order to ensure effective protection of the Union’s financial interests and proper implementation of the strategic plans by Member States as approved by the Commission; states that such safeguards will only make sense, however, if they are used, and therefore asks the Commission to urgently strengthen its fraud prevention and detection capabilities; points also to Parliament’s commitment to keep a close eye on Member State implementation of CAP strategic plans as approved by the Commission and to hold the Commission accountable for compliance with and application of its obligations laid down both under the Treaties and by the co- legislators in the CAP regulations;

Amendment 48 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to strengthen its fraud prevention and detection capabilities, but without creating additional administrative or bureaucratic burdens, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and to apply stricter penalties to those who use the funds for purposes other than those for which they were intended;

Amendment 49 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Recognises the work of OLAF and calls for increased efforts and vigilance in relation to the cases of conflict of interest and against oligarch structures, especially in certain Member States where these cases are more often identified; emphasises that these kind of misuses are to the detriment of the taxpayers’ money and EU’s financial interest;

Amendment 5 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Irène TOLLERET, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that greater transparency is a decisive factor in detecting fraud and conflicts of interest and that it is therefore essential to publish a comprehensive list of CAP beneficiaries which is clear and accessible to the public; points out that that requires more common rules, better data interoperability, more cross-border cooperation and greater use of modern and efficient (digital) tools;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes that the new CAP includes provisions, proposed by the European Parliament, that should further help the effective protection of the financial interests of the Union through collection and publication of data on groups of beneficiaries;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Recalls Article 60 of EU Regulation 1306/2013, which introduces the Circumvention clause against artificially created conditions for obtaining advantages;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Commends the work of the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office in tackling such structures;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Urges greater use of the EU Copernicus ob-servation programme to detect discrepancies between declared and actually cultivated parcels;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Recalls that in Bulgaria in 2019, checks of 22,007 hectares on the ground revealed errors of around 10per cent in the declared areas for subsidising under the coupled support measures;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6 e. Deplores acts of physical intimidation against farmers, such as those which took place in Slovakia, and which were investigated by the CONT committee in 2018;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)

6 f. Recalls that in Romania the authorities have intensified fraud investigations con-cerning EU money in the last four years, identifying a prejudice of more than 100 million EUR, of which almost 90% is related to EU funds;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)

6 g. Call on the Commission to increase the weight of the political aspect of its evaluation processes, as the issue of conflict of interest as well as of revolving doors in the sector is a serious problem;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 h (new)

6 h. Calls on the Commission to monitor the situation of Agriculture Paying Agencies in the member states and ensure both their formal and informal independence and bring their work in compliance with the EU rules, securing this inter alia through randomly generated visits a better EU control system in place;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 i (new)

6 i. Call for the European bodies responsible for investigating and tackling the misuse of EU funds, including the European Public Prosecutors Office and OLAF, to be equipped with sufficient re-sources to proceed effectively with their responsibilities in terms of the protection of the EU’s budget;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reaffirms that the CAP remains one of the best managed EU policies and that the error rate for the natural resources heading, for which the CAP accounts for 98 % of expenditure, has now stabilised at less than 2 %; adds that the error rate for direct payments is significantly lower than that figure;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 j (new)

6 j. Call on the Commission to ensure that the Fifth Anti-money laundering directive is implemented fully and correctly in all member states, particularly with regard to the implementations of public registers of beneficial owners and registers of beneficial owners of trusts;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 k (new)

6 k. Recalls the case of Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, that although he transferred Agrofert into two trust funds in February 2017, he is still the beneficial owner, as concluded by auditors, of Agrofert hold-ing, and thus in conflict of interest;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 l (new)

6 l. Recalls the situation of Bulgaria, where 230 biggest beneficiaries received direct subsidies of more than 120 million euro. In other words, 0.33 per cent of the beneficiaries took 15.3 per cent of all payments, while at the same time, 48 per cent of the smallest beneficiaries retained a meagre 3.4 per cent of the payments;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Further to: (i) Parliament’s call1 afor greater transparency in the distribution of agricultural land and the concentration of land, which has an impact on access to land for farmers; (ii) the opinions of the Ombudsman2 aand of the Court of Auditors on the need to link individual public payments to the land (parcels) for which they are granted, in the context of possible fraud and misuse of EU funds; (iii) and as the statistics available3 aprovide a limited picture of farm ownership and control, in order to facilitate public-authority monitoring and control of land grabbing and concentration and to ensure greater accountability and transparency with regard to EAFRD and EAGF support, information on ownership structures should therefore also be made available to the public. Therefore, when the names of CAP fund beneficiaries are published ex-post, Member States should include information on the legal owners of agricultural parcels in respect of which payments have been applied for. In addition, publication of the list of beneficiaries should also make it possible to identify the parent undertakings. That would significantly contribute to the monitoring of ownership structures and facilitate the investigation of potential conflicts of interest, corruption, and fraudulent behaviour. _________________ 1a European Parliament report on the state of play of farmland concentration in the EU (2016/2141 (INI)). 2aEuropean Ombudsman’s decision in Case 1782/2019/EWM. 3a Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 on integrated farm statistics.

Amendment 64 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers that combating conflicts of interest and fraud not only requires a comprehensive information and monitoring system that provides a clear and accurate picture of the distribution of CAP funds, but also presupposes a strengthened role for OLAF: the resources it has for investigations, for following up complaints and for training must be stepped up, and its arrangements for European coordination with the Court of Auditors, Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the Member States must be enhanced, as must the coordination it can carry out at international level; referral to OLAF by any citizen must be facilitated and whistle-blowers must be better protected;

Amendment 65 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Irène TOLLERET, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Expresses ~~its~~ concern that ~~the cases 7. of high-level conflicts of interest and land-grabbing by oligarchs, which are possibly being facilitated by government~~land concentration and land grabbing are increasing significantly across some parts of Europe; emphasises that land grabbing and land concentration are practices that negatively affect the economic and social welfare of local communities, hindering generational renewal by forcing many farms, mainly small-scale farms, out of business and hampering access to land and setting up new farms; calls on the European Commission to address these issues, within the limits of its competence; invites the Member States to take immediate actions to address lan~~d public authorities~~g grabbing and extreme land concentration;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Expresses its concern at the cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs, which are possibly being facilitated by governments and public authorities; calls on the Member States to implement the Article 61 on Conflict of interests by and its application on all EU funds´ payments as the main instrument for the fights against oligarchs; calls on the Commission to control the compliance with Article 61 and evaluate the impact of the fight against the oligarchs and the misuse of subsidies;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Expresses its concern at the cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs and criminals, which are possibly being facilitated by governments and public authorities; calls on the Member States to adhere to the Financial Regulation of the EU, and in particular to implement the Article 61on Conflict of interests and to apply it on all EU funds´ payments; calls on the Commission to control the compliance with Article 61 and evaluate the impact of conflict of interest on the use of funds;

Amendment 68 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Expresses its concern at the cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs, which are possibly being facilitated by governments and public authorities; calls for extra scrutiny towards Member States by the Commission to this end; urges the Commission and Member states to immediately step up measures against land-grabbing, irregular tenders or other allocation procedures and misconduct of EU-money especially when national authorities and governments are involved;

Amendment 69 #

Carmen AVRAM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Expresses its concern at the cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs, which are possibly being facilitated by governments and public authorities; further calls for a distinction to be made between land- grabbing and the accumulation of small agricultural plots as a way to reduce high levels of fragmentation and to assemble economically viable agricultural units;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the study entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’1a and emphasises the importance of consolidating and harmonising EU reporting systems; stresses also that reporting systems for CAP and cohesion policy funds should contain information on final beneficiaries; regrets that currently, data for identification of economic operators and their beneficial owners is not easily or not at all accessible; stresses therefore the need for a common database at EU level gathering harmonised data from already existing databases at regional, national and inter-regional level. This would require harmonisation of disclosure requirements and data formats fulfiling the Open data requirements with indicators defined to allow ultimate beneficiaries in the national and EU-level databases to be identified; _________________ 1aStudy on the largest 50 beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds, requested by the CONT Committee, PE 679.107 - May 2021

Amendment 70 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Expresses its concern at the cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs, ~~which are possibly being~~particularly when they are facilitated by governments and public authorities; points out that these risks of conflicts of interest are greater with regard to shared expenditure, which is financed by the Union budget and disbursed to beneficiaries by the Member States, whose experience has shown that not all of them are a model of virtue;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Emphasises the clear link between respecting the rule of law and the sound implementation of CAP funds; urges the Commission to be extra vigilant on rule of law matters and to activate its proportionate sanction system if needed with regard to EU funds;deleted

Amendment 72 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. EUrges the Commission to swiftly address the severe violations of the principle of rule of law in some member states that are seriously jeopardising the fair, legal and impartial distribution of EU funds, emphasises the clear link between respecting the rule of law and the sound implementation of CAP funds; urges the Commission to be extra vigilant ~~on rule of law matters~~ and to activate its proportionate sanction system ~~if needed~~ with regard to EU funds;

Amendment 73 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Irène TOLLERET, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Emphasises the ~~clear link between respecting the rule of law and the sound implementation of CAP funds~~importance to protect all EU funds, including CAP funds, from infringements of the rule of law; urges the Commission to be extra vigilant on rule of law matters and to activate its proportionate sanction system if needed with regard to EU funds;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Emphasises the importance of full transparency in the decision-making process as a measure to prevent conflicts of interest; underlines that having effective management and control systems in place in each Member State is therefore crucial condition for legal and regular spending of EU funds;

Amendment 75 #

Mara BIZZOTTO, Angelo CIOCCA, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Takes the view that there may also be conflicts of interest in connection with advisory services, because of the importance attached to AKIS receiving financial support from the second pillar of the CAP, in particular when a vendor advises a farmer on the purchase of inputs, and in particular pesticides, as this may discriminate against and penalise alternative practices based on agroecology and/or integrated pest management;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

~~10. Encourages the harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level.~~deleted

Amendment 77 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Encourages the harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level and support interoperability with the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) in order to achieve transparency on ultimate beneficial users and often hidden parent- companies.

Amendment 78 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Emma WIESNER, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Encourages the ~~harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level~~Member States, which haven’t yet done so, to ensure interoperability between the cadastral systems and the Integrated Administration and Control System in order to facilitate and improve the verification process.

Amendment 79 #

Veronika VRECIONOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Encourages the harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level~~DELETION10a _________________ 10aWill not help in tackling the misuse of CAP funds. In the Czech Republic the cadastral system is in a perfect order, yet, one oligarch illegally grabs most CAP funds.

Amendment 8 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Irène TOLLERET, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the study entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’ and emphasises the importance of consolidating and harmonising EU reporting systems, including through shared databases to ensure EU-wide data base interoperability, common rules and data exchange between governments and stakeholders; stresses also that reporting systems for CAP and cohesion policy funds should contain information on final beneficiaries; urges the Member States to publish this data in a single, machine readable format and to ensure the interoperability of information;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Encourages the harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level. , the interoperability of land ownership systems, animal identification, and comparability of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for payments, which have been designed differently from one Member State to another, so that analysis between Member States and at Union level is possible and that ultimate beneficial owners and parent companies with subsidiaries in different Member States can be identified and checked.

Amendment 81 #

Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Encourages ~~the harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level~~exchanges of best practices between Member States' competent authorities with regard to cadastral systems and points out that under no circumstances do land issues fall within the competence of the EU.

Amendment 82 #

Veronika VRECIONOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Recalls the fact that the fundamental reason for misuses of EU funds is the extraordinarily high EU- budget and its redistribution in forms of numerous hefty subsidies.

Amendment 9 #

Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Juozas OLEKAS, Marc TARABELLA, Clara AGUILERA, Maria NOICHL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the CONT study entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’ and emphasises the importance of consolidating and harmonising EU reporting systems and create interoperability among them; stresses also that reporting systems for CAP and cohesion policy funds should contain information on final beneficiaries;

source: 699.334

2021/12/08 CONT 140 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

– having regard to the 2020 Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),

Amendment 10 #

B. whereas the implementation of all of those funds must respect rigorously the principles of sound financial management and is subject to full and unlimited scrutiny by Parliament;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 101 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for the use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) to be made compulsory under shared management; further notes that the EDES does not distinguish between subsidiaries of larger corporations; calls for the mandatory use of the Arachne data mining and data enrichment tool by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP ~~funds;~~ and ESI funds, and to effectively and efficiently identify the problematic economic operators and the private individuals or natural persons linked to them; emphasises that the interoperability and harmonisation of Arachne, EDES, institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the EU budget;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for the use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) to be made compulsory under shared management and create a transparent EU wide blacklist; further notes that the EDES does not distinguish between subsidiaries of larger corporations; calls for the mandatory use of the A~~rachne~~RACHNE data mining and data enrichment tool by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds; is of the opinion that the European investigative bodies shall have full and direct access to the ARACHNE;

Amendment 103 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Reiterates the urgent call on the Commission to establish an EU-wide and interoperable, digital reporting and monitoring system, encompassing but not limited to ARACHNE; emphasises that this system needs to include information on the ultimate beneficiaries and beneficial owners and must enable to aggregate all individual amounts concerning the same beneficiary or beneficial owner into a total amount of all subsidies received from funds under shared management;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Reminds of the Initiative legislative report on "Digitalisation of the European reporting, monitoring and audit" and its valuable legislative proposals to improve the monitoring of EU funds, in view of the creation of a standardised Union-wide interoperable digital system for Member States‘ implementing authorities to report about the beneficiaries of CAP and structural and cohesion funds;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Regrets that currently available IT tools that greatly contribute to efficient datamining and the detection of fraud and corruption - Arachne and EDES - are used only by a small percentage of Member States; calls for the mandatory use of the Arachne data mining and data enrichment tool by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on the beneficiaries of CAP funds;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)

21b. Reiterates its calls made on the Commission to urgently create and implement a coherent, interoperable, standardised reporting and auditing platform on the final beneficiaries of EU funds, as well as to improve training for monitoring and paying agents on the ground;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)

21c. Notes that the obligation to identify the beneficial owner should as a minimum apply whenever any natural or legal person owns more than 15% of the company in question; emphasises that company shares belonging to relatives should be aggregated and counted as one;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Is of the view that none of the above-mentioned remedies exclude the use of the ‘rule-of-law conditionality mechanism’, as defined in the Conditionality Regulation, in cases where the Commission considers that other instruments are not sufficiently effective to protect the EU budget; underlines, moreover, that contrary to the scope of the EPPO Regulation, which is not in force in five Member States, the Conditionality Regulation applies directly and equally to all Member States;deleted

Amendment 109 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Is of the view that none of the abovementioned remedies exclude the use of the ‘'rule-of-law conditionality mechanism’,' as defined in the ~~Conditionality Regulation~~Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, in cases where the Commission considers that other instruments are not sufficiently effective to protect the EU budget; underlines, moreover, that contrary to the scope of the EPPO Regulation, which is not in force in five Member States, the Conditionality Regulation applies directly and equally to all Member States;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the protection of the EU’s financial interests is a key element of the EU policy agenda to strengthen ~~and increase the confidence of the~~transparency, democratic accountability and the ability to respond to citizens’ needs, increase the trust of the general public and ensure that taxpayers’ money is ~~used~~spent properly; whereas the implementation of the MFF 2021-2027 budgetary package must be in line with the general principles enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the values set out in Article 2 TEU, in the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation and in the Financial Regulation;

Amendment 110 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Regrets that, since 1 January 2021, the Commission has been unable to take any appropriate action to apply the Conditionality Regulation, which entered into force on that day; regrets deeply that after months of debating, Parliament has been forced to take legal action against the Commission under Article 265 TFEU for failure to apply the Conditionality Regulation;deleted

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Deplores that since 1 January 2021, the Commission has been unable to take any appropriate action to apply the Conditionality Regulation, which entered into force on that day; ~~strongly regrets that after months of debating, Parliament has been forced to take legal action against the Commission under Article 265 TFEU for failure to apply the Conditionality Regulation~~repeats Parliament’s position that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 must be applied without exception as of 1 January 2021; welcomes reports that the Commission has entered into preliminary proceedings with Hungary and Poland by sending letters in mid-November 2021; deplores that the Commission denies Parliament access to these letters and forces Parliament to revert to media reports to keep itself informed about the latest developments;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 113 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Deplores that since 1 January 2021, the Commission has been unable to take any appropriate action to apply the Conditionality Regulation, which entered into force on that day; strongly regrets that after months of debating, Parliament has been forced to take legal action against the Commission under Article 265 TFEU for failure to apply the Conditionality Regulation; is of the opinion that the informal letters sent out to Hungary and Poland are insufficient in terms of applying the regulation; insist again that the Commission should start the application of regulation immediately and initiate procedures against all affected Member States without any discrimination immediately;

Amendment 115 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Underlines the important role of investigative journalists in the fight against fraud and illegal activities that negatively impact the EU budget; reiterates in this regard the need to protect investigative journalism from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), as well as personal harassment, intimidation and threats to life; stresses the importance of encouraging whistleblowing while ensuring legal safeguards under European law;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Underlines the important role of investigative journalists in the fight against corruption, fraud and illegal activities that negatively impact the EU budget; reiterates in this regard the need to protect investigative journalism from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), as well as personal harassment, intimidation and threats to life;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Is deeply concerned in this context by the fact that the former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš is mentioned in the Pandora Papers for using offshore financing to acquire real estate in France while at the same time participating in the decision- making in the European Council, e.g. on the Multiannual Financial Framework and anti-money laundering legislation;

Amendment 118 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Calls on the Commission to insist on a strict and rigorous implementation of the applicable rules, to use all available sources and to employ efficient management and control systems to address risks of fraud and conflict of interest, and to better monitor the situation of agriculture paying agencies and their formal and informal independence; is of the view that substantive auditing and controls both on the national and European level are key conditions for the protection of the EU funds; deplores the insufficient progress in the fight against oligarch structures in the new CAP, such as the limited information and transparency on final and ultimate beneficiaries and keeping up the voluntary nature of capping which hinders the fairer distribution of agricultural funds; finds it worrying that the new CAP ~~proposal~~ does not strengthen the role of controlling systems at European level;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

Amendment 12 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the protection of the EU’s financial interests is a key element of the EU policy agenda to strengthen and increase the confidence of the public and ensure that taxpayer money is used properly; whereas the implementation of the MFF 2021-2027 budgetary package must be in line with the general principles enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the European Values set out in Article 2 of the TEU and the principle of sound financial management set out in Article 310 of the TFEU and in the Financial Regulation;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Notes that the first priority should be to reform the current control mechanisms and instruments, to make them more effective and to extend their scope, and considers that new rules and instruments should be introduced only when existing structures have proved inadequate to combat fraud and conflicts of interest;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Calls on the Member States to ensure to the greatest extent possible that information on fraud cases that is reported to the Commission via IMS, is reliable and accurate. Therefore, regular validation of data before reporting to the EU level, as well as system checks, are highly recommended;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)

27b. Underlines that the AFCOS play an important role in protecting the EU’s budget from fraud in their respective countries; reiterates, therefore, that Member States need to ensure that the Managing Authorities and AFCOSs have sufficient resources with the right skills and competences to develop anti-fraud strategies, and to implement effective anti- fraud measures and practices;

Amendment 123 #

Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Points out that under the RRF Regulation, which forms part of the MFF 2021-2027 package, the Member States have to ensure the effective prevention, detection and correction of conflicts of interest, corruption and fraud, and avoidance of double funding; stresses that they are also required to explain the relevant arrangements in their recovery and resilience plans and include a summary of the consultation process at national level as well as a presentation of the controls and audit system put in place to ensure that the financial interests of the EU are protected; calls on the Council not to adopt any financial support to Member States where all legal, social and policy conditionalities for support are not fulfilled, with special regard to the existence of effective systems for the detection, prevention and correction of irregularities and fraud, as well as the functioning of the rule of law;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Points out that under the RRF Regulation, which forms part of the MFF 2021-2027 package, the Member States have to ensure the effective prevention, detection and correction of conflicts of interest, corruption and fraud, and avoidance of double funding; calls on the Commission, that the budget authorities are informed about all situations when funds from off-budget instruments are not paid out due to allegations of misuse, corruption, fraud or breaches of rule of law and when member states do not have sufficient anti-fraud systems in place; stresses that they are also required to explain the relevant arrangements in their recovery and resilience plans and include a summary of the consultation process at national level as well as a presentation of the controls and audit system put in place to ensure that the financial interests of the EU are protected;

Amendment 125 #

Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Points out that under the RRF Regulation, which forms part of the MFF 2021-2027 package, the Member States have to ensure the effective prevention, detection and correction of conflicts of interest, corruption and fraud, ~~and~~ avoidance of double funding, fictitious registration of assets, as well as transparency in the payment of funds and strengthening of the rules on the correct identification of the final recipient of funds; stresses that they are also required to explain the relevant arrangements in their recovery and resilience plans and include a summary of the consultation process at national level as well as a presentation of the controls and audit system put in place to ensure that the financial interests of the EU are protected;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Reminds that the RRF scoreboard will serve as a basis for the recovery and resilience dialogue and that it should be updated by the Commission twice a year; calls in this sense on the Commission to ensure a thorough monitoring of the progress achieved in the implementation of the milestones and targets foreseen, strictly in line with the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) Regulation, on the basis of the established common indicators and reporting methodology; recalls that the RRF is bound to conditions that guarantee a transparent use of the money and should prevent corruption or fraud, double funding or conflict of interests and believes that controls should be extended also to costs actually incurred by the final beneficiaries; stresses the joint effort of the European Parliament and of the Commission which resulted in Member States being now obliged to provide information about final recipients;

Amendment 127 #

Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Welcomes the fact that Arachne (an integrated IT tool for data mining) is currently being adapted to include data and information on beneficial owners (FBO), subcontractors and final beneficiaries and the first adaptations are to be implemented already by the end of Q2 2022;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)

28b. Notes that the RRF is an extraordinary instrument specifically designed to address the effects of the pandemic; is concerned that absorption is closely connected to outstanding commitments that have continued to grow; recalls the increasing gap between commitments and payments which poses a serious challenge for the discharge authority too; calls on the Commission to inform the budget authorities if funds are not used by Member States or if EU-funds seep into national budgets;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)

28b. Welcomes the fact that the Commission provides the Member States “Arachne” (an integrated IT tool for data mining) free of charge to help authorities to better prevent and detect fraudulent operations, contracts and contractors; regrets that the use of this data-mining tool was not made yet compulsory; encourages the Commission to push for a generalized application by Member States;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas there is a clear relationship between the respect for the rule of law and the efficient implementation of the Union budget in accordance with the principles of sound financial management;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Underlines that in order to protect the financial interests of the EU and to detect fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest in particular, it is important to know how EU funds are spent and who truly benefits from EU funds, since the largest beneficiaries often hide behind complex ownership structures, including those based in tax havens, rendering the identification process even more opaque;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Underlines that in order to protect the financial interests of the EU, to prevent and to detect fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest in particular, it is important to know how EU funds are spent and who truly benefits from EU funds, since the largest beneficiaries often hide behind complex ownership structures;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Regrets that data for identifying businesses and their beneficial owners is not easily or sometimes even at all accessible, since neither the CAP nor cohesion policy reporting systems contain information on the ultimate beneficiaries; emphasises the importance of consolidating and harmonising of existing regional, inter-regional and national reporting systems into a common database at EU level;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Reiterates, following the interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2020 and as expressed already in several resolutions, its call for the Member States to implement a single, integrated and interoperable reporting and monitoring system developed by the Commission and including but not limited to a single data- mining and risk-scoring tool to access, store, aggregate and analyse data on those ultimately benefiting directly or indirectly from EU funding;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Warns against any initiative to create new instruments or control systems, especially those that could lead to the duplication of existing structures, the creation of parallel structures and excessive budgetary expenditure, as well as unnecessary administrative burdens;

Amendment 136 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Considers that for the sake of full transparency about the spending of EU funds, it is essential that such a database is developed ~~to the greatest extent possible,~~ in line with applicable data protection rules and the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and is made accessible to the public in a concise, comprehensive and user-friendly way in order to enhance public scrutiny and trust in EU public spending;

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Considers that for the sake of ~~full~~greatest possible transparency about the spending of EU funds, it is essential that such a database is developed to the greatest extent possible, in line with applicable data protection rules and the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and that relevant and non-sensitive data is made accessible to the public in a concise, comprehensive and user-friendly way in order to enhance public scrutiny and trust in EU public spending;

Amendment 138 #

Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)

32a. Reiterates that a sound financial management of EU-funds is of utmost importance; regrets that databases on beneficiaries of EU funds do not contain information on the ultimate beneficiaries and their beneficial owners; regrets that it is not possible for control authorities to identify the ultimate recipients of funding; deeply deplores that NGOs have been used to disguise financing of terrorist and extremist organisations; underlines that common rules on beneficiary transparency should also apply to umbrella organisations that receive EU funds and pass them on to NGOs in their network to ensure that the Commission and control authorities can audit the project’s aims and final beneficiaries; regrets that the Commission did not propose a harmonized definition of NGOs on the basis of which it could monitor those ultimately benefitting; notes that the Financial Regulation sets out rules for the selection and award of funds to these entities as well as the control mechanisms; calls on the Commission to revise the Financial Regulation also in the sense of defining the term, by introducing clear categories of NGOs and extend the controls also to costs actually incurred by the final beneficiaries;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)

32a. Welcomes the preliminary research carried out by the Commission to use clustering technology over data to define patterns where there could be a strong correlation with fraud within Arachne; encourages the use of emerging technologies to prevent fraud and conflict of interest;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas ~~on a regular basis, different media outlets all over Europe provide their readers with scandals covering~~cases of fraud, conflict of interest, corruption and other illegal activities which are damaging to the EUʼs financial interests and involv~~ing~~e high-level political representatives in EU Member States undermine the trust of European citizens in the EU and its institutions;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Concludes that even though the new MFF uses certain tools such as increased amounts budgeted for special instruments ~~and a budgetary mechanism to uphold the rule of law~~, there is still space for additional tools to strengthen anti-oligarch practices which could be addressed in the framework of the upcoming revision of the Financial Regulation;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas on a regular basis, different media outlets all over Europe provide their readers with reports on scandals covering fraud, conflict of interest, corruption and other illegal activities damaging the EUʼs financial interests and involving high-level political representatives in EU Member States, as well fraud and crime of customs, cross- border or digital nature;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas on a regular basis, different media outlets all over Europe provide their readers with scandals covering fraud, conflict of interest, corruption and other illegal activities damaging the EUʼs financial interests and involving high-level political representatives in EU Member States, sometimes adopting the structure of, or supported by, criminal organisations;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the Pandora Papers published on 3 October 2021 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists represent the latest major data leak, exposing more than 330 politicians and public officials from almost 100 countries, including 35 current or former heads of states and governments involved in corporate secrecy and offshore tax evasion and avoidance; whereas this scandal follows on from other similar cases yet there has been no effective intervention;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the OLAF Report 2020 identified conflict of interest and collusion between beneficiaries and contractors, in particular in the area of public procurement, among the main trends in fraudulent activity; whereas OLAF’s cases often relate to fraud or corruption in cross-border public procurement procedures involving EU funding;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas Parliament has adopted numerous resolutions through which it has been calling on the Commission to take prompt action and to remedy the alarming misuse of EU funds by politically prominent wealthy individuals, elites and big conglomerates; whereas the Commission has yet to take action on this matter;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)

– having regard to the Advocate General’s Opinion of 12 December 2021 in Case C-156/219a and Case C-157/219b, _________________ 9a Hungary v Parliament and Council 9b Poland v Parliament and Council

Amendment 20 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that, in today’s society, ‘oligarchy’ refers to any small, cohesive class or group that is in a position to make decisions or command others in either political or non-political contexts or rule a political community in its own interest, without regard for democracy; notes that in an oligarchy, political elites misdirect public funds from the EU or national budgets to serve their private interest and often rely on businessmen who act on their behalf in a structure where real beneficiaries and beneficial owners are usually concealed; notes that the extreme concentration of political and financial elites leads to state capture;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Adds that in the current EU political context, the term ‘oligarchy’ is being used as a way of pointing out the influence of the wealthy and powerful in politics and government, an influence that is typically used to benefit the few at the expense of the many; highlights that members of national governments and other holders of political positions are part of the oligarchy in some Member States, and have actively sought to use EU funds to benefit themselves financially;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Adds that in the current EU political context, the term ‘oligarchy’ is being used as a way of pointing out the influence of the wealthy and powerful in politics and government, an influence that is typically used to benefit the few at the expense of the many; considers worryingly the increase of oligarch structures within the Union, where a small group of politically influential, wealthy people control the states;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Adds that in the current EU political context, the term ‘oligarchy’ is being used as a way of pointing out the influence of the wealthy and powerful in politics and government, and that of economic, financial and industrial actors, who can exercise an influence that is typically used to benefit the few at the expense of the many;

Amendment 26 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes, with particular concern, that the occurrence of such oligarchic groups, which ~~sometimes~~ do not refrain from using criminal practices, has reached an unprecedented magnitude in the past several years;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes, with particular concern, that the occurrence of such oligarchic groups, which sometimes do not refrain from using government tools or criminal practices, has reached an unprecedented magnitude in the past several years; notes, with extreme concern, that politically connected oligarch networks can capture the national media market and interfere with the workings of democratic public spheres;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes, with particular concern, that the occurrence of such oligarchic groups, which sometimes do not refrain from using criminal practices or the support of criminal groups, has reached an unprecedented magnitude in the past several years;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasises that, in order to protect themselves, oligarchic groups seek to gain control over the media and the judiciary so as to avoid media exposure and prosecution of possible criminal activities;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14

– having regard to its resolutions of 8 October 2020 on the rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria13 ~~and~~ of 29 April 2021 on the Assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia and the rule of law in Malta14 , of 8 July 2021 on the Breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary as a result of the adopted legal changes in the Hungarian Parliament14a and of 21 October 2021 on the Rule of law crisis in Poland and the primacy of EU law14b, _________________ 13 OJ C 395, 29.9.2021, p. 63. 14 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0148. 14a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0362. 14b Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0439.

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Is concerned that oligarchs systems are often connected to widespread corruption, a tight control over media and a judiciary system with is not independent from the oligarchs themselves;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes the considerable ability of oligarchic structures to gain easy access to the substantial resources provided by the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument thanks to the large amount of capital made available and the support of highly qualified professionals; points out, too, that public authorities do not always adequately address the risks and possible distortions affecting the EU’s financial interests;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Reminds that the Parliament position on corruption is that it not only seriously harms the Union’s financial interest, but also poses a threat to democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law; is worried of the detrimental impact of corruption for the trust of citizens in the institutions;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that promoting competition, enhancing transparency and assuring functional implementation of public procurement rules and free access to markets is fundamental to prevent oligarchs from seizing control of the economy and financial market, which w~~ould~~ill result in them self-reinforcing to an even greater degree;

Amendment 34 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that effective management and control systems, promoting competition, enhancing transparency and assuring functional implementation of public procurement rules and free access to markets isare fundamental to preventing oligarchs from seizing control of the economy and the financial market, which would ~~result in them self-reinforcing~~further reinforce oligarchic tendencies;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that ensuring the effective functioning of the rule of law, promoting competition, enhancing transparency and assuring functional implementation of public procurement rules and free access to markets is fundamental to prevent oligarchs from seizing control of the economy and financial market, which would result in them self-reinforcing; insists that the EU promotes transparency in the spending of EU and national funds, strengthen the rules of transparency, especially on final beneficiaries and beneficial owners and closely monitor and enforce the proper implementation of such rules;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that ~~promoting competition~~effective anti- corruption policies and bodies, promoting competition, independent media and judiciary, enhancing transparency and assuring functional implementation of public procurement rules and free access to markets is fundamental to prevent oligarchs from seizing control of the economy and financial market, which would result in them self-reinforcing;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that the existing regulatory environment, including Member State and Community rules against trusts, monopolies and cartels, and the rules on the exclusion of valid economic and political conflicts of interest, provided an appropriate legal environment until it became necessary for certain groups to seek to shape EU financial regulations to achieve political ends, driven by obvious political will and even using undemocratic means and disregarding the Treaty;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights that new challenges in the fight against fraud are emerging and to cope with these new risks it is necessary to provide a more efficient collection of data, to improve transparency and to set up strong and coherent anti-fraud polices;

Amendment 39 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts in this direction and in reinforcing its cooperation with the Member States;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

– having regard to the Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-156/21 and C157/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council; Poland v Parliament and Council,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the publication of the Commissionʼs guideline on ~~the~~ conflicts of interest which ~~brings about a necessary degree of explanation for its users as to its correct interpretation~~aims to raise awareness and to promote a uniform interpretation and application of the rules on avoiding conflicts of interest rules among Member States, in particular by giving examples of terms not specified in Article 61 of the Financial Regulation, such as the adoption of appropriate measures to prevent conflict of interest from arising and to address situations ‘which may objectively be perceived as a conflict of interest’; deplores, however, that conflict-of-interest cases affecting high-profile politicians continue to persist in some Member States; calls on the Commission to evaluate whether all the relevant provisions of the Financial Regulation are sufficiently effective in preventing and addressing conflicts of interest;

Amendment 41 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Encourages the Commission to further strengthen the conflict of interests provisions under article 61 of the Financial Regulation as part of its upcoming revision, in particular with regards to the preparation of the budget, e.g. by adding a non-exhaustive list of the institutions and categories of staff and political representatives participating in the preparation of the budget, in order to determine more precisely which public officers can effectively influence financial flows from the EU budget; calls on the Commission to provide for procedural solutions capable of dealing with situations where the public officer does not have a hierarchical superior, in particular by obliging the institution in which the public officer has the possibility of influencing financial flows from EU the budget, to exclude such public person from the activities of the institution relating to the EU budget;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Asks the Commission nevertheless to amend Article 167(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation to include a more explicit definition of ‘professional conflict ofing interests’, so as to ensure that EU institutions are able to take mitigating measures in the case of bidders with a financial interest in a policy-related service contract;

Amendment 43 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Asks the Commission nevertheless to amend Article 167(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation to include a more explicit definition of ‘professional conflict of interest’, so as to ensure that EU institutions are able to take ~~mitigating~~adequate measures in the case of bidders with a financial interest in a policy-related service contract;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Asks the Commission nevertheless to amend Article 167(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation to include a more explicit definition of ‘professional conflict of interest’, so as to ensure that EU institutions are able to take mitigating measures in the case of bidders with a financial interest in a policy-related service contract; calls on the Commission to do its utmost for ensuring uniform interpretation of the definition of conflict of interest in all Member States of the EU;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Stresses that no financial control instrument or rule should become a political instrument, that they should be applied in a regulatory way, based solely on objective criteria, and that no new legal approach should be used to discriminate against individuals or groups on the basis of objective or political criteria;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that conflicts of interest do not only occur in relation to fraud and criminal conduct; stresses nevertheless that the consequent detection and disclosure of conflicts of interest is paramount to identifying possible risks of misuse, bias, fraud and corruption in fund management, as well as preventing reputational harm; stresses that situations involving conflicts of interest sow suspicion and distrust among European citizens, and spread the feeling that there is a lack of transparency;

Amendment 47 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that conflicts of interest do not only occur in relation to fraud and criminal conduct, as they may touch upon lobbying activities and revolving-doors phenomena; stresses nevertheless that the consequent detection and disclosure of conflicts of interest is paramount to identifying possible risks of misuse, bias, fraud and corruption in fund management, as well as preventing reputational harm;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that conflicts of interest do not only occur in relation to corruption, fraud and criminal conduct; stresses nevertheless that the consequent detection and disclosure of conflicts of interest is paramount to identifying possible risks of misuse, bias, fraud and corruption in fund management, as well as preventing reputational harm;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Reiterates that the citizens of each Member State must be able to trust in the integrity of the management of EU funds in all Member States, and that different standards of protection against conflicts of interest and fraud cannot therefore be applied;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

– having regard to ~~its~~the study of 20 May 2021 requested by its Committee on Budgetary Control entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Notes with concern that fraud against the interests of the Union is increasingly transnational in nature; calls on the Member States to cooperate more closely with one other and with OLAF, Europol and Eurojust to allow effective action to be taken against fraud involving several countries; regrets deeply that some Member States continuously choose not to implement OLAF’s recommendations following the conclusion of an investigation and do not launch judiciary actions to recover defrauded EU funds;

Amendment 51 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Reiterates, however, that even the best legal framework cannot compensate for an insufficient implementation mechanism; underlines that having effective management and control systems in place in each Member State is therefore crucial condition for legal and regular spending of EU funds;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Reiterates, however, that even the best legal framework cannot compensate for an insufficient implementation mechanism; calls therefore for an improvement of the capacities of the EU bodies for better enabling them to monitor and investigate conflict of interest cases;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Considers that better enforcement of the EU’s existing financial rules and enhanced application of its existing control tools, as well as wider use of various digital tools such as the EDES and IMS systems, could also help to enforce compliance with conflict of interest rules;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Reiterates that the occurrence of oligarchic structures has reached an unprecedented magnitude in the EU in recent years and that two Member States are currently subject to procedures under Art 7 and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, pointing at structural rule of law deficiencies and widespread corruption; considers against this background that there is a need for a broader debate on the future of shared management as not all national authorities can still be considered reliable partners in the sound financial management of EU funds;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that as far as cohesion policy is concerned, the most frequently detected types of fraudulent irregularities for projects financed under the programming period 2014-2020 for European structural and investment funds concern incorrect, missing and false or falsified supporting documents, infringement of contract provisions, eligibility and infringement of public procurement rules, and breaches in relation to ethics and integrity including conflict of interest and corruption; considers it essential to standardise data collection to ensure that data can be shared and accessed in such a way as to allow cross- checking between Member States;

Amendment 56 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ENotes that EU cohesion policy contributes to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union and aims to correct imbalances between Member States and regions; emphasises that as far as cohesion policy is concerned, the most frequently detected types of fraudulent irregularities for projects financed under the programming period 2014-2020 for European structural and investment funds concern incorrect, missing and false or falsified supporting documents, infringement of contract provisions, eligibility and infringement of public procurement rules, and breaches in relation to ethics and integrity including conflict of interest and corruption;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that as far as cohesion policy is concerned, the most frequently detected types of fraudulent irregularities for projects financed under the programming period 2014-2020 for European structural and investment funds concern overpricing, incorrect, missing and false or falsified supporting documents, infringement of contract provisions, single biding public procurements, eligibility and infringement of public procurement rules, and breaches in relation to ethics and integrity including conflict of interest and corruption;

Amendment 58 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Underlines that the misuse of EU funds often starts with the wilful violation of the principle of partnership and consultation with relevant stakeholders, including social partners and non- governmental organisations, regarding the content of programming documents for EU support programmes; continues with the issuing of calls for projects disproportionately favouring certain groups of potential beneficiaries, including oligarchic players and culminates in non-transparent project selection practices, diverting large amounts of taxpayers’ money towards wasteful projects, substantially reducing the impact of EU support, and major public scandals negatively affecting the EU’s image, weakening much-needed solidarity among Member States;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Notes that in agricultural spending~~, there is also~~ there are established common practices at the misuse of CAP funds, such as a risk of falsification of documents and of the creation of artificial conditions , such as by splitting agricultural holdings to avoid EU agricultural payment cap and requesting aid through several linked companies, or through incomplete implementation of the action; highlights that with regard to market measures, high financial amounts were recorded in several cases of conflict of interest combined with other breaches linked to promotion and are being investigated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

Amendment 6 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20

– having regard to the study of February 2021 by the Greens/EFA entitled ‘Where does the EU money go? An analysis of the implementation of CAP funds in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania’ (study on the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP)),deleted

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Points out that in several countries conflict of interest and revolving doors constitute serious problems; highlights that with regard to market measures, high financial amounts were recorded in several cases of conflict of interest combined with other breaches linked to promotion and are being investigated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

Amendment 61 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that the study on the implementation of the CAP funds revealed that the disbursement of EU agriculture funds is a highly problematic issue in at least five Member States and that there is a clear inequality between fund allocations for big and small farmers, with systemic advantages for the big farms, whose ~~managers sometimes~~beneficiaries often have close ties to the ruling political parties in their countries; calls for more equal allocation of CAP funds;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. PNotes that one of the main objectives of EU agricultural policy is to ensure a fair income to farmers; underlines that, given the problems of conflict of interests in the distribution of agricultural funds, it is undesirable that members of the European Council, agricultural ministers, functionaries, or their family members should be taking decisions on income support; points out that the study on the implementation of the CAP funds revealed that the disbursement of EU agriculture funds is a highly problematic issue in at least five Member States19a and that there is a clear inequality between fund allocations for big and small farmers, with systemic advantages for the big farms, whose managers sometimes have close ties to the ruling political parties ~~in their countries;~~ or are themselves members of these in their countries; urges the Commission and Member States to immediately step up measures against land-grabbing, irregular tenders or other allocation procedures and misuse of EU-money, especially when national governments and authorities are involved; _________________ 19aBulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.

Amendment 63 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that the study1a on the implementation of the CAP funds revealed that the disbursement of EU agriculture funds is a highly problematic issue in at least five Member States and that there is a clear inequality between fund allocations for big and small farmers, with systemic advantages for the big farms, whose managers sometimes have close ties to the ruling political parties in their countries; _________________ 1a Sabeb et al 2021: WHERE DOES THE EU MONEY GO? AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CAP FUNDS IN BULGARIA, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HUNGARY, SLOVAKIA AND ROMANIA

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Further notes with concern the reports on the structural misuse of the EAFRD budget line to build private villas for political decision-makers disguised as guesthouses which has occurred in several Member States; calls on the Commission to take decisive action to prevent the structural misuse of this budget line in the future including, if necessary, to amend the conditions for the payment of EAFRD funds;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Reiterates that data on the beneficiaries of the CAP and the Cohesion Policy are currently fragmented in hundreds of regional, national and inter-regional reporting systems, disclosing only basic information on the direct beneficiaries. This makes it more difficult to get a comprehensive overview of the ultimate beneficiaries and the amounts of EU funds they received1a; _________________ 1aStudy on the largest 50 beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds, requested by the CONT Committee, PE 679.107 - May 2021

Amendment 66 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Takes note that in Hungary according to several exposes, surveys and investigative articles Viktor Orbán has been centralising and redistributing wealth to his inner circle trough agriculture subsidies. Underlines that during the period 2015-2019, Hungary had the highest number of OLAF investigations closed with a financial recommendation among Member States;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Regrets the skewed distribution particularly of CAP money where in 2020, 0.5% of all beneficiaries receive more than EUR 100 000, thereby obtaining 16.6% of the total direct payment envelope, while 75% of beneficiaries receive less than EUR 5 000, which accounts for 15% of the total direct payment envelope1a; _________________ 1a Commission Report on Direct payments to agricultural producers - graphs and figures - financial year 2020

Amendment 68 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Points out that although there is a certain level of transparency required by the EU, its implementation is often impeded, so public access to data regarding the allocation of subsidies is highly problematic issue in the EU;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)

Additional risks

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the budgetary authorities adopted the MFF 2021-2027 package, which together with the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument amounts to EUR 1.8 trillion in total of funding ~~over the coming years~~ to support recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the EU’s long- term priorities across different policy areas;

Amendment 70 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Points out that the management of EU funds in Czechia has been raised as a potential concern in recent years. Recalls that, during years 2016-2018 almost 75 % of agricultural funds in Czechia went to the large corporate farms. Express concern regarding the Commission’s audit, which confirmed that as Prime Minister, Mr Andrej Babiš exercised influence on the allocation of EU subsidies to Agrofert, an agro-chemical conglomerate that he founded himself. Underlines that Mr. Babiš is the beneficial owner of the Agrofert and therefore the conflict of interest is obvious;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Deplores the fact that there are 292 reporting systems disclosing beneficiary information of CAP and Cohesion Policy which makes it de facto impossible to identify the ultimate final beneficiaries of EU funds, and to compare the data collected in the Member States; it also makes it more difficult to properly investigate misuses of EU funds; urges the Commission to establish a more unified reporting system which is capable of the comparison of the data provided by the Member States;

Amendment 72 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Deeply regrets that the current situation where one person can receive unlimited amounts from funds under shared management incentivises the creation of oligarch structures, nepotism and corruption in some Member States; reiterates its opinion that capping the total amount that one person can receive from EU funds under shared management would limit the strengthening of oligarch structures;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Regrets that the Commission systematically fails to collect, process and disclose data relative to the final beneficiaries, owners and beneficial in shared management and agricultural funds which would help detect patterns of fraud and corruption involving EU funds;

Amendment 74 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 b (new)

COVID-19

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Calls on the Commission to include in its proposal for the revision of the Financial Regulation an amendment of Art 63 paragraph 8 adding that the Commission shall ensure that payments accruing from the Union budget to a single beneficiary or beneficial owner in a given financial year do not exceed the limits provided for in the applicable sector-specific rules and, in any event, do not exceed an aggregated annual total per natural person; asks the Commission to include specific proposals for this aggregated annual total amount per natural person; is of the opinion that for the CAP annual total amounts per natural person of EUR 500 000 for first pillar payments and EUR 1 000 000 for second pillar payments are adequate;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Points out that according to EU’s anti-fraud office OLAF Romania recorded the highest number of fraud cases of anywhere in the EU in 2018 and 2019. Recognises that small and medium- sized farms in Romania face high levels of bureaucracy regarding access to even essential amounts of funding and subsidies;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Reminds that 2020 has been unprecedented due to the COVID outbreak; in terms of the protection of financial interests, it posed new risks both on the revenue and expenditure side;

Amendment 78 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Underlines that these risks are not only related to 2020 but will go beyond for several years; invites the Member States and the Commission to step up its efforts and cooperation in this domain;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)

Other areas of concern

Amendment 8 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the budgetary authorities adopted the MFF 2021-2027 package, which together with the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument amounts to an unprecedented EUR 1.8 trillion in total of funding over the coming years to support recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the EU’s long- term priorities across different policy areas;

Amendment 80 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)

15d. Notes with great concern that according to the Single Market Scoreboard the proportion of contracts awarded with merely a single bidder amounted to around 50% in Czechia and Poland in 2018 and 2019, 40% in Hungary and Greece in 2019, and 38% in Portugal; is equally concerned by the proportion of procurement procedures negotiated with a company without any call for bids, which was at 40% in Cyrus in 2016 with a slight improvement to 25% in 2018 and 2019, and 29% for Bulgaria in 2019; is concerned that the proportion of contracts awarded after a call for tender whose name and conditions were not clear was 65% in 2019 in UK, 59% in Lithuania, 44% in Romania and 41% in Portugal;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 c (new)

Organised crime

Amendment 82 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Highlights the increasing involvement of organised crime, including of mafia-type, in cross-border activities and sectors affecting the EU’s financial interests; regrets that many Member States do not have specific laws to combat mafia-type organised crime and calls on the Commission to address these differences between the Member States and to consider new harmonising measures;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 e (new)

15e. Emphasises that these figures demonstrate that severe shortcomings in public procurement continue to exist in several Member States; is concerned that inadequate tenders can favour opaque structures and nepotistic awarding of contracts;

Amendment 84 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 f (new)

15f. Reiterates its concern that the Commission’s preventive system audits found serious weaknesses concerning the Hungarian authority responsible for controls on public procurement contracts, which resulted in a10% flat rate correction amounting to around EUR 1.2 bn - additionally to EUR 1.5bn of financial corrections imposed in the period 2007 - 2013; emphasises that this reflects severe systemic weaknesses in the functioning of public procurement in Hungary;

Amendment 85 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 g (new)

15g. Reiterates its concern about OLAF investigations and Commission audits exposing serious shortcomings in the Slovak land parcel registry (cadastre) following reports of land grabbing and fraud; highlights that the Slovak authorities only check whether an applicant has the land at their legal disposal in cases of double claims; is of the opinion that such checks should take place in a digital and automated form in all Member States and for all payment claims to deter land grabbing by criminal and oligarchic structures;

Amendment 86 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 h (new)

15h. Emphasises that Malta and Cyprus show significant concentration of funds in the hands of few recipients; is concerned that Commission audits have identified significant shortcomings in the management and control systems of both countries; underlines that weak management and control systems do not provide adequate protection of EU funds against conflicts of interests and abuse by oligarchic structures;

Amendment 87 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ARecognises the work of OLAF and calls for increased efforts and vigilance in relation to the cases of conflict of interest and against oligarch structures, especially in certain Member States where these cases are prevalent; appreciates OLAFʼs long-term intensive investigative activity covering many politically controversial and complex cases; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2009 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 21 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons and calls on the Member States to cooperate closely with EU institutions and bodies to ensure that funds misused by organised crime and oligarchs are recovered;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Appreciates OLAFʼs long-term intensive investigative activity covering many politically controversial and complex cases; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2009 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 21 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons ~~and calls on the Member States~~; reiterates its calls on OLAF to regularly follow up on its recommendations and the measures the Member States take and add it to its yearly reports and calls on the Member States’ authorities to do their utmost to improve the indictment rate and to cooperate closely with EU bodies to ensure that funds misused by organised crime and oligarchs are recovered;

Amendment 89 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Appreciates OLAFʼs long-term intensive investigative activity covering many politically controversial and complex cases; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2009 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 21 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons and calls on the Member States to cooperate closely with EU bodies to ensure that funds misused by organised crime, including mafia groups, and oligarchs are recovered;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the implementation of all of those funds is de jure subject to full and unlimited ~~scrutiny by Parliament~~European scrutiny, including scrutiny by the European Parliament; however the de facto capacity of the EU institutions to control the EU funds is unfortunately rather limited without the effective and meaningful cooperation of the national authorities;

Amendment 90 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Markus PIEPER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises the importance and added value of the newly established EPPO; appreciates the EPPOʼs endeavours to become operational under very challenging circumstances; ~~calls on the Commission to assist the EPPO in solving the problem of diverging implementation of the PIF Directive by different Member State~~emphasises that a proper transposition of the PIF Directive is necessary to enable the EPPO to conduct effective investigations and prosecutions; recalls that the Commission’s report on the transposition of the PIF Directive concludes that although all Member States have transposed the Directive, further action is needed to address outstanding compliance issues, which mostly concern definitions of criminal offences and the liability and sanctions for legal persons and natural persons; underlines that the outcome of the cooperation between the EPPO and the Member States is also crucial ~~in order to assess the proper functioning of the management and control systems for the purpose of audit arrangement~~for EPPO to reach its maximum effectiveness;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises the ~~importanc~~key role and added value of the newly established EPPO in the protection of the EU’s financial interests; deeply regrets that there are still five Member States not participating in EPPO; encourages these Member States to join EPPO; appreciates the EPPOʼs endeavours to become operational under very challenging circumstances; calls on the Commission to assist the EPPO in solving the problem of diverging implementation of the PIF Directive by different Member States; underlines that the outcome of the cooperation between the EPPO and the Member States is also crucial in order to assess the proper functioning of the management and control systems for the purpose of audit arrangements;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Notes that five Member States do not currently participate in the EPPO; welcomes the conclusion of working arrangements between the EPPO and Hungary; calls on the other non- participating Member States to establish working arrangements with the EPPO in order to avoid gaps in the detection of organised crime and fraud;

Amendment 93 #

Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Commends the invaluable work carried out by OLAF, the EPPO and Europol in combating fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, and stresses that these institutions are chronically understaffed and lacking financial resources due to the unwillingness of the Council as one of the budgetary authorities to authorise sufficient human and financial resources during the annual budgetary procedure; ~~calls therefore on the Council to review its position and~~welcomes the increase of EPPO’s budget by EUR 3.8 million in the annual budgetary procedure for the year 2022; calls on the Council to allow for increased financing of financial and human resources for these agencies and offices in the future, enabling them to ~~carry out~~fulfil their important mission in an appropriate and effective way;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Commends the invaluable work carried out by OLAF, the EPPO and Europol in combating financial crimes such as corruption, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, and stresses that these institutions are chronically understaffed and lacking financial resources due to the unwillingness of the Council as one of the budgetary authorities to authorise sufficient human and financial resources during the annual budgetary procedure; ~~call~~reminds that every euro spent on monitoring and investigation returns to the EU budget; urges therefore on the Council to review its position and allow for increased financing of human resources for these agencies and offices, enabling them to carry out their important mission in an appropriate and effective way and calls on the Commission to continuously present supporting draft budgets to the budget authorities;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Commends the invaluable work carried out by OLAF, the EPPO and Europol in combating fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, and stresses that these institutions are chronically understaffed and lacking financial resources due to the unwillingness of the Council as one of the budgetary authorities to authorise sufficient human and financial resources during the annual budgetary procedure; calls therefore on the Council to review its position and allow for increased financing of human resources for these agencies and offices, enabling them to carry out their important mission in an appropriate and effective way; welcomes the joint analysis efforts of OLAF and Europol to assess the threats and vulnerabilities of the RRF instrument;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Underlines that the Commission should use all the instruments available under EU financial legislation and the applicable sector-specific and financial rules to effectively protect the EU budget, including interruption of payment deadlines, suspension of payments, financial corrections or exclusion of expenditure from EU financing, infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, checks and audits or, in duly justified cases, the application of Article 7 TEU addressing risks to the foundational values of the EU in the Member States~~, as has recently been done in the cases of Poland and Hungary~~;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. UReiterates that the Commission has a plethora of instruments at its disposal to protect the financial interests of the Union, including the Common Provisions Regulation, the Financial Regulation and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; underlines that the Commission should make full and immediate use all these instruments available under EU financial legislation and the applicable sector-specific and financial rules to effectively protect the EU budget, including interruption of payment deadlines, suspension of payments, financial corrections or exclusion of expenditure from EU financing, infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, checks and audits or, in duly justified cases, the application of Article 7 TEU addressing risks to the foundational values of the EU in the Member States, as has recently been done in the cases of Poland and Hungary;

Amendment 99 #