Activities of Ramona STRUGARIU related to 2023/2144(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022
Amendments (4)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) declared the reliability of the annual accounts of the European Union Agency of Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022 to be legal and regular in all material respects; regrets that a total amount of EUR 4.2 million was non- compliant expenditure which exceeded the materiality threshold set for the audit, therefore resulted a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of payments by the Court; regrets that in some of the contracts audited, the Court findings revealed that the amount of work paid for did not correspond to the amount actually done and that there was a lack of essential audit evidence supporting the amounts paid; notes that CEPOL has introduced corrective measures with respect to the irreguarities found;
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the Agency reacted rapidlyCommends the Agency for its rapid response to the unjustified war in Ukraine, and for delivereding a tailor made open source intelligence (OSINT) course for the Ukrainian General Prosecutors Office, in cooperation with the Council of Europe;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes with concern from the Court’s report that, since the 2020 financial year, the Court has raised for the Agency new procurement- related observations every year; highlights from the Court’s report the observation representing the basis for the Court’s qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of 359 payments of a total value of EUR 4,1 million made in 2022 under two framework contracts implemented directly through order forms (service requests) that were sent by Agency’s staff members who did not have the delegated authority to enter into legal commitments on behalf of the Agency, or by interim employees who could not legally have such delegated authority because of their interim status; takes note of the Agency's reply to the Court’s observation that, even if there was a weakness in the formalisation of the legal commitment, the services were ordered in line with the Agency’s needs and controls were applied in full to ensure that the funds were used for the intended purpose and no actual loss was incurred; notes from the Agency’s replies to Parliament’s written questions that those contracts were not affected by other irregularities and the Agency has taken measures to address the Court’s observation by amending the Agency’s internal procedures to ensure that orders will only be communicated to the travel agent by statutory staff, who have been delegated by an authorising officer to engage in a legal commitment; notes the Agency’s reply whereby the Agency has immediately introduced corrective measures, even before the end of the audit process; calls on the Agency to fully address these observations and improve its procurement procedures in order to avoid similar situations in the future years;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Highlights further from the Court’s report the qualified opinion according to which all the amounts paid in 2022 (EUR 152 655) for the implementation of a framework contract (for educational editorial services) could not be reconciled with the services provided and some categories of tasks did not reflect the nature of actual work performed, and for some categories, the amount of work paid for did not correspond to the amount actually done, thereby rendering those amounts irregular; notes the Agency's explanation that the number of pages ordered, delivered and paid did not fully match, as due to nature of work, namely editorial and educational content development, this was not always precisely quantifiable in advance; notes further that, according to the Agency's reply, checks were carried out on the deliverables and the categories of tasks were based on those listed in a previous contract with the Publications Office; calls on the Agency to put in place measures allowing the Agency to better quantify deliverables in advance and avoid such situations in the future;