16 Amendments of Dan NICA related to 2014/2075(DEC)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Court detected serious errors in public procurement (39 % of estimated error rate), a high frequency of non-compliance with state aid rules (17 % of the estimated error rate), as well as extremely low rates of disbursement of financial engineering instruments to final recipients in 2013; stresses the importance of preventive measures to reduce errors and the need to simplify and diminish the administrative workload, so long as this does not affect the quality of the controls;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading and subheading after recital E
Heading and subheading after recital E
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Draws attention to differences in control criteria and proposes that consideration be given to ways of harmonising controls, so as to focus on results.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Underlines the need in future to consider and assess project results, investment returns and real added value for the economy, employment and regional development.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 1
Paragraph 1 – indent 1
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1– indent 2
Paragraph 1– indent 2
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1– indent 4
Paragraph 1– indent 4
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 35
Subheading after paragraph 35
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Points out that according to the figures provided in the 2013 annual activity report of DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion the risk of error as a weighted average of the estimation for each operational programme supported by the European Social Fund is below 1% in Austria and Denmark (0,8%), Bulgaria and Poland (0,6%, Estonia (0,4%, Finland (0,1%, Hungary and Malta (0,9%); and this percentage is 5% or more in Romania (6,6%), UK (8,8%) and Belgium (9,3%);
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Points out that according to the figures provided byin the Court of AudiAnnexes to the 2013 annual activity report of DG AGRI the adjusted residual risk of error for each sector is as regards the amounts and percentage of funds afollows: - Market measures: below 1% in Belgium (0,92%), Bulgaria (0,91%) Hungary (0,41%); Ireland (0,90%); Luxembourg (0,85%); Latvia (0,65%); Romania (0,95%) and Slovakia (0,08%); it risk as to the European Agricultural Guarantee Funds and the European Agricultural Funds for Regionbove 5% in Austria (8,57%); the Czech Republic (14,48%); Spain (10,89%); France(6,37%); Netherlands (19,40%); Poland (19,05%) and UK (20,21%); - Direct payments: below 1% in Belgium (014%); the Czech Republic (0,39%); Germany (0,63%); Estonia (0,94%); Malta (0,03%); Poland (0,97%)Sweden (0,41%) and Slovenia (0,85%); it is above 5% in Greece (5,17%); - Rural Ddevelopment (source data included in the 2013 annual activity report of DG Agricultural and Rural Development) Romania, Bulgaria an Portugal have the highest error rates; : in no one Member States the adjusted residual error rate in below 1 % and only in Germany, Estonia and Malta it is under 2%; it is above 5 % in Bulgaria (14,36%); Denmark (6,60%); France (7,26%); Greece (12,37%); Italy (5,10%); Luxembourg (6,31%); Netherlands (5,77%); Portugal (7,87%); Romania (11,43%); Sweden (5,04%);
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 114
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
Paragraph 134
134. Regrets that faulty first-level-checks by national management and control systems remained a prime source of error; has therefore the impression that Member States seem to be less scrupulous when spending Union funds compared to the way they spend their national budget; notes that the following programmes showed particular systemic weaknesses: Poland, Spain (Castilla y Leon), Romania, Portugal, Italy (Sicily), Germany (Bund), Germany (Thüringen), Czech Republic and Hungary; notes that in addition, thematic Commission audits revealed weaknesses in the management and control sysNotes the Court's observations about the main risks to regularity of spending in this policy area, such as the risks related to the intangible nature of investments in human capital, the diversity of the activities and the involvement of multiple, often small-scale partners, in the implementation of projects; welcomes the use of simplified cost options which reduce the administrative burden on the beneficiaries and are less prone to errors being made by Member States; asks the Commission to encourage Member Statems of the operational programmes for Ireland (Human Investment Capital), Slovakia (education) and Spain (Comunidad Valenciana)not to apply more demanding rules to ESF projects than to nationally funded projects;
Amendment 413 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 172 a (new)
Paragraph 172 a (new)
172a. Observes that first-time applicants, particularly SMEs, are with a largely unknown risk/error profile; Calls on the Commission not to undermine the efforts made to encourage these participants to participate in the programme, by systematically increasing the level of control or administrative burden on them;
Amendment 414 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 172 b (new)
Paragraph 172 b (new)
172b. Calls on the Commission to increase the awareness of auditors for fulfilling their role.