79 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2018/2166(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Citation 4
Citation 4
— having regard to the Commission’s 2017 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget (COM(2018)0457), and the flaws therein;
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance4 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 4 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance12 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 12 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a decision 3
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance23 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 23 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a decision 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a decision 4
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance34 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 34 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a decision 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a decision 5
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance46 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 46 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a decision 5
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Research Council Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a decision 7
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance68 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 68 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a decision 7
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a decision 8
Citation 4
Citation 4
— having regard to the Commission’s 2017 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget (COM(2018)0457), and the many flaws therein;
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a decision 8
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the statement of assurance78 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, _________________ 78; having regard also to the fact that the statement of assurance for 2017 is tainted by the fact that a) the error-rate correction hasn’t been published, and b) application of the Residual Error Rate (RER) rather than Payment error-rate in many instances is inappropriate, as this cannot reflect the true error-rate for 2017; _________________ 78 OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9. OJ C 357, 4.10.2018, p. 9.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a decision 8
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Approves/pPostpones the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas when the Parliament grants discharge to the Commission it checkshas an obligation to all Union citizens to establish without fear or favour whether or not funds have been used correctly and policy goals achieved;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Notes that in 2017 the Union budget was the fourth year of implementation of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which amounted to EUR 159,8 billion, including six amending budgets, and that the allocations in different areas were:
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the Court audited transactions worth a total of 100,2 billion euros, which represents less than two- thirds of the total budget for 2017;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Regrets that in the case of all four of DG DEVCO, DG REGIO, DG NEAR and DG HOME, Residual Error Rate calculations (RER) have been used, which are all related to pre-2017 payments and are thus not only irrelevant, but misleading in terms of the 2017 actual payments error-rate;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Points out that all this renders the Commission’s claim in its Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR) questionable, at least, and misleading, that ‘The Commission is confident that the overall amount at risk remains below 2 %. In fact, the overall level of estimated error continues its downward trend in 2017, with the estimated overall amount at risk at payment now even down to 1.7 % and the estimated overall amount at risk at closure down to 0.6 %’;1 1 AMPR 2017 - p.75.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the “Court”) gave a clean opinion on the reliability of the accounts of the European Union for 2017, as it has done since 2007, and that the Court concluded that the revenue for 2017 underlying these accounts was legal and regular in all material respects, but points out that that there are many pertinent question-marks over the recorded error- rates;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes with satisfaction that for 2017, the Court has issued for a second consecutive year a qualified (rather than an adverse) opinion on the legality and regularity of the payments underlying the accounts, which according to the Court, indicates that a significant part of the 2017 expenditure audited by it was not materially affected by error and that the level of irregularities in EU spending has continued to decrease;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the methodology used to calculate the error-rate for 2017 is flawed, at best, with Residual Error-Rates from previous years being used by four DGs at least (DG REGIO, DG DEVCO, DG NEAR and DG HOME), and that the audit focus for 2017 as opposed to previous years was on areas of predictably low error-rate, all of which renders the final claimed error-rate open to serious question;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Regrets that while the Court did provide error-rates under MFF headings of Administration expenditure, Cohesion, Competitiveness, and Natural Resources, it didn’t do so for Security & Citizenship, and Global Europe;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomRegrets that the error rate for payments is still above the material threshold of 2 %; notes the positive trend of a continuing decrease of the most likely error rate for payments determined by the Court in recent years, estimated at 2.4 % in 2017, which is still above the threshold of 2 % but represents an almost two-thirds’ reduction in the most likely error rate estimated by the Court for the financial year 2007, which stood at 6.9% for paymentswhich itself is now open to question, given the flawed methodology used;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that where payments were made on the basis of cost reimbursements (where the EU reimburses eligible costs for eligible activities), the Court estimates the level of error at 3.7 % (4.8 % in 2016), whilst the error rate for entitlement payments (which are based on meeting certain conditions) was below the materiality threshold of 2 %; regrets that the error rate is not clearly quantified for the entitlement payments;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets that the Court estimated the level of error for entitlement-based expenditure excluding some rural development schemes and asks that they be included in future;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out that the Commission itself has noted that the improved error- rate performance for 2017 was due in large part to the score from that ‘Natural Resources’ area1; 1. AMPR p. 81 - ‘Compared to 2016, the main change is the significant decrease in Cohesion, Migration and Fisheries. In this policy area, the current 2014-2020 programmes are coming up to speed, which have an inherent lower risk given the newly introduced annual clearance of accounts and the 10 % retention mechanism on interim payments until all controls and corrective measures are implemented (see under ‘progress made’ in Section 2.2)’.
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Regrets that in calculating the error-rate the Court does not mention the original level of error that would have been applied if correction measures were not implemented;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Stresses that as was done in 2016 (when it was merely mentioned), the estimated level of error for cohesion does not include a quantification of 2017 disbursements to financial instruments; recalls that since the eligibility of structural funds for the period 2007-13 was postponed to the end of March 2017, the disbursements to financial instruments for the first three months of 2017 should have been included into the calculation of the error-rate; regrets that the Court has not mentioned this anywhere in the Annual Report; calls on the Court to take on board all the irregularities having a financial impact when determining the most likely error- rate, and calls on the Commission to table the necessary legislative proposal to put an end to this irregularity;
Amendment 52 #
Commission internal governance tools
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Recalls that the distinction made by the Commission between the ‘political responsibility of Commissioners’ and the ‘operational responsibility of directors- general’ means that it has not always been made clear whether ‘political responsibility’ encompasses responsibility for the directorates-general, or is distinct from it;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7e. Reiterates its call on the Commission to produce an annual statement on governance and on internal control, covering in particular: (a) a description of the internal governance tools of the Commission; (b) an assessment of the operational and strategic risk activities during the year and a mid- and long-term fiscal sustainability statement;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point a
Paragraph 11 – point a
a) improve its monitoring of import flows, including making wider use of reasonable and legal data mining techniques to analyse unusual patterns and their underlying reasons, and act promptly to ensure that due amounts of TOR are made available;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that for the second year in a row, DG Budget set a reservation on the value of TOR collected by the UK, due to the country’s failure to make available to the EU budget evaded customs duties evaded on textiles and footwear imports;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the infringement procedure initiated by the Commission on 8 March 2018 as a follow-up to the UK customs fraud case, but - especially in light of Brexit and the increased difficulties this will impose on any collection process - regrets that it took the Commission more than 7seven years to launch this procedure after its request to the UK in 2011 to set risk profiles for under-valued textiles and footwear imports from China;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned that in 2017 the combination of high commitments and low payments increased outstanding budgetary commitments increased to a new record of EUR 267,.3 billion (2016: EUR 238,.8 billion) and that the Court projections indicate this amount will rise even more by the end of the current MFF, which may lead to a significantly increased risk of insufficient payment appropriations, but also to a risk of errors under the pressure for a swift absorption given a potential loss of Union funding;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Recalls that the Court reported that the issue of whether to count special instruments within the ceilings for payment appropriations has not yet been resolved; this could represent an additional risk of a payment backlog;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Notes the increase in the use of financial instruments, which represents a risk for transparency and accountability;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Agrees with the Court on the need for more detailed reporting on Financial Instruments, and regrets (as does the Court) that the last available report on Financial Instruments under Share Management (FISM) for the 2014-2020 MFF period is the report as at the end of the 2016, published in December 20171; 1 2017 annual report, paragraph 2.35
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Paragraph 15 d (new)
15d. Regrets that in the above mentioned report, it is evident that by the start of 2017, after three years of the current MFF, less than 10 % of the total ESI Funding available through FISM had so far reached recipients to finance productive investments and activities1; 1 2017 Annual Report, paragraph 2.34
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Apart from the areas of privatisation of public services and infrastructure, welcomes the progress with the priority project list in Greece;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)
Subheading 8 a (new)
Hungary
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. (a) Recalls the investigations the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) conducted on the ELIOS and “Heart of Budapest” projects where serious irregularities were found; (b) Is concerned about the high rate of procedures that involves only a single bidder in Hungary, which can be viewed as a possible indicator of a strong risk of corruption; call on the Commission to put in place measures to promote competition in this sector;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Regrets that, as noted by the Court, in the AARs the Commission presents at least 13 different rates for the two programming periods as a measure of the expenditure at risk. Such a large number of rates leads to a lack of clarity and potential confusion as to their relevance and the assurance provided[1]. This could partially explain the worrying discrepancy between the Residual Error- Rate as calculated by the Court, versus the Commission - 3.00 % versus 1.39 % respectively; [1] 2017 annual report, paragraph 6.57.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Notes in addition that the number of returnees co-financed by the AMIF was 48 250 in 2017 compared to 5 904 in 2014, and that of those returned, the share of non- voluntary returns has increased from one quarter (25%) in 2014 to half (50%) in 2017, while the reported number of persons who returned voluntarily was 17 736 in 2017; notes also, however, with concern, that there is no Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to measure what’s being done to protect those migrants - legal and illegal - who most need protection, the women and children;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43a. Calls on the Commission to consider the migration policy not only as an urgency issue, but to establish a comprehensive policy truly based on the principles of solidarity;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65 a (new)
Paragraph 65 a (new)
65a. Points out that there is major interest and concern within the Union on security and migration, and that the Court should address this concern with an increased scrutiny of this budgetary area, with DG HOME required to produce payment error-rates along with Residual Error-Rates;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73 a (new)
Paragraph 73 a (new)
73a. Believes that when providing external aid, more attention should be put by the Commission on respect for human rights as per the UN Charter, and the Rule of Law, in the receiving countries;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Notes that in its Special report 27/2018 on the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, the Court found that, in a challenging context, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey rapidly mobilised EUR 3 billion to provide a swift response to the refugee crisis, but did not fully achieve its objective of coordinating this response effectively, or sufficient value for money; notes the conclusion of the court that the Facility could have been more effective, and that it could achieve more value for money;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. The findings of the Court
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 b (new)
Paragraph 84 b (new)
84b. Notes that the Court indicates that the level of error in spending on ‘Administration’ was not material; nevertheless notes with concern that the error rate increased when compared to the previous year (0.55 % in 2017 and 0.2 % in 2016);
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 c (new)
Paragraph 84 c (new)
84c. Notes that while the Court did not find any significant weaknesses, it did find recurring areas where there was scope for improvement;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 d (new)
Paragraph 84 d (new)
84d. Recalls the Parliament Resolution from 08 April 2018 on ‘Integrity policy of the Commission, in particular the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission’, and its key messages;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85 b (new)
Paragraph 85 b (new)
85b. Recalls the findings of the Ombudsman in its recommendation in joint cases on the European Commission’s appointment of a new Secretary General, in which she ‘agrees with (European Parliament) assessment that the double appointment stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law’; the Ombudsman also agreed with the European Parliament that ‘appointments to high level posts like Secretary-General should be made independently of other appointments’;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85 c (new)
Paragraph 85 c (new)
85c. The Ombudsman has found four instances of maladministration and presented conclusions ‘largely similar to those of the European Parliament’ in a case that undermined public trust in the EU, exacerbated by the way Commission reacted to valid concerns on the procedure, namely ‘in an evasive, defensive and legalistic manner’;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85 d (new)
Paragraph 85 d (new)
85d. The Ombudsman presented a final recommendation to the Commission, which ‘should develop a specific procedure for its Secretary General, separate from other senior appointments’;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
Paragraph 87
87. Welcomes the fact that Commissioner Oettinger organised an inter-institutional round table on senior management selection and appointment on 25 September 2018, although; nevertheless regrets that because the meeting seems to have been inconclusive; calls therefore on the Commission to put in practice paragraph 29 of its resolution on integrity policy in the Commission;, this allowed the Commission to feel ‘comforted in its view that the way in which the institutions implement the rules is both adequate and fit for purpose’ [1]; calls therefore on the Commission to put in practice paragraph 29 of its resolution on integrity policy in the Commission; [1] Opinion of the European Commission on the European Ombudsman’s recommendation - complaint by delegations of the European Parliament, ref 488/2018/KR and 514/2018/KR
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. Insisteds that the implementation of the European Union budget should be policy driven;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95
Paragraph 95
95. Insisteds that the implementation of the European Union budget should focus on results and that the structure of the EU budget should be modified to provide for measuring progress and performance;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96
Paragraph 96
96. Encouraged, iIn this context, encourages the Commission and the Court to pay greater attention to results achieved, performance audits and the final impact of policies;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96 a (new)
Paragraph 96 a (new)
96a. Stresses that any and all audits should be focus on the areas most likely to be subject to error, especially those with the greatest funding levels;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
Paragraph 97
97. Cooperated closelyNotes the close cooperation with the Commission to develop the Article 318- Evaluation-Report, into a comprehensive synthesis report, recording the progress in different policy areas, which later became the first part of the Annual Management and Performance Report;
Amendment 218 #
102a. Notes with concern that according to DG AGRI Annual Activity Report (AAR), ‘Big farms managing over 250 ha represent 1.1 % of farms, manage 27.8 % of the total farmland and receive 22.1 % of total direct aid. Among these “big farms”, the majority has between 250 and 500 ha.’1; believes that this is an unjustifiable and unsustainable abuse of scarce EU funds; 1 DG AGRI AAR - p.26
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102 b (new)
Paragraph 102 b (new)
102b. Believes that the Court should audit all Member States and highlight this unfair distribution of EU funds wherever it occurs; believes further that the Commission should take steps to ensure that CAP funds should be distributed in a weighted manner, such that the payments per hectare are on a reducing scale relative to the size of the holding/farm;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
103. Called ons for the CAP to become more competitive whilst farmer-friendlyfunding to remain at current levels at least and to do the job it was designed to do, support the producers so they have a sustainable living, while ensuring an affordable top- quality food-supply for Union citizens;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113 a (new)
Paragraph 113 a (new)
113a. Regrets that in its analysis of performance, the Commission focuses more on outputs and less on outcomes; it should be concentrating on a value-for- money approach;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 117 – point f a (new)
fa) strengthen the focus on performance in the Commission’s work;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 118
Paragraph 118
118. Recommends that the Court continue to provide a separate chapter for security and citizenship in its annual report and to deepen its analysis in this regard, as the public and political interest in the security and migration part of the Union budget is much higher than its financial share; in this regard, insists that the Court estimates the exact level of error for this chapter;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119
Paragraph 119
119. Is of the opinion that the Commission’s methodology for estimating its amount at risk or errors has improved over the years but that individual DGs’ estimations of the level of irregular spending are not based on a consistent methodology and that the AARs of the DGs and the AMPR use a complex terminology that could be confusingis confusing to all but the most practiced, when it should be clear to all;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119 a (new)
Paragraph 119 a (new)
119a. Regrets that the figure for error- rate-correction has not been published - this leads to legitimate questions over how the final figure was arrived at;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. Notes in particularRegrets that the services of the Commission use at least all the following concepts wide variety of concepts, including: residual error rate,; reported error rate,; error rate at payment,; error rate detected in the year,; net residual error rate,; weighted average error rate,; error rate at closure or common representative error rate. In an era of transparency, this needs to change;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. Asks the Commission and the Member States once again to put in place sound procedures to confirm the timing, the origin and the amount of corrective measures and to provide information reconciling, as far as possible, the year in which payments are made, the year in which the related error is detected and the year in which recoveries or financial corrections are disclosed in the notes to the accounts; ask the Court to mention the level of correction applied to calculate the error rate in its Annual Report, as well as the original error rate before corrections;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 46 a (new)
Subheading 46 a (new)
Czech Republic:
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 a (new)
Paragraph 129 a (new)
129a. Recalls the European Parliament Resolution of 13th December 2018 on conflicts of interest and the protection of the EU budget in the Czech Republic; reiterates its concern about the Czech Republic’s non-compliance with Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation regarding the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister and his links to the Agrofert Group;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 b (new)
Paragraph 129 b (new)
129b. Recalls the letter Commissioner Oettinger sent to the Czech Prime Minister, in which it is stated that the Commission considers that his position qualifies as a situation which may objectively be perceived as a conflict of interest and that action to remedy this situation is urgently needed; in addition points out that the recommendation proposed by the Commission - notably Prime Minister withdrawn from the Governing Council for European Structural and Investment Funds, and his abstention from participating in decisions which concerns his interests - was qualified as insufficient while remaining Prime Minister, by the Legal Service of the Commission in its opinion;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 c (new)
Paragraph 129 c (new)