50 Amendments of Michal WIEZIK related to 2022/2081(DEC)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls its strong commitment to the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), including sound financial management as set out in Article 317 and the combating of fraud and protecting the financial interest of the Union as set out in Article 325;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that transparency, accountability, and integrity are essential ethics principles within the Union institutions; recalls the Court’s conclusions and recommendations in its special report 13/2019 on the ethical frameworks of Union institutions, as well as Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions by setting up an independent Union ethics body with, on the one hand, a preventive role via awareness-raising and ethical guidance, and, on the other hand, a compliance and advisory role with the ability to issue recommendations on ethical matters, including conflicts of interest;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Emphasises the role of the EPPO, the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), Europol and OLAF in the fight against corruption; calls for the capacities of and cooperation between the EPPO and OLAF to be strengthened further; calls for common anti-corruption rules applicable all staff of EU bodies;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls the importance of an ex post evaluation including for financial programmes created to respond to a crisis; The evaluation of the performance of the programme in relation to effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value would be in line with the financial regulation, the “Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making” and the “Better Regulation Guidelines”;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the relevance of reporting on the performance of the Union budget’s programmes for the discharge procedure; draws attention to the fact that the added value of the invested resources is closely linked to the results achieved and their contribution to improving the daily life of Union citizens and the economic impact within the EU;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates its deep concerns regarding the situation concerning the rule of law in a number of Member States, which is deeply worrying in its own right and leads to serious losses for the Union budget; underlines that Union funds must not be used for anti-democratic activities or for strengthening authoritarianism; welcomes the first application of the conditionality mechanism in the case of Hungary, procedure launched in November 2021 and concluded in December 2022 with the freezing of 55% of three cohesion policy programmes (around EUR 6,35 billion); reiterates its strong conviction that Member States must respect democracy and the rule of law in order to receive Union funds and draws attention to the Commission that the rule of law situation has also been deteriorating in other Member States, calls therefore on the Commission to trigger without delay the application of the conditionality mechanism whenever breaches of the principles of the rule of law are identified to be affecting or are in serious risk of affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way; moreover stresses that Parliament, Council and the Commission need to closely co-operate together as alliese need for a strong cooperation between Parliament, Council and the Commission; underlines its strong and repeated requests to the Commission and executive agencies to ensure the protection of the Union budget by making global and systematic use of digital and automated systems for reporting, monitoring and audit and by a common anticorruption rule and by making the interinstitutional Transparency register [AS1] mandatory for all EU institution even agencies;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates its deep concerns regarding the situation concerning the rule of law in a number of Member States, which is deeply worrying in its own right and leads to serious losses for the Union budget; underlines that Union funds must not be used for anti-democratic activities or for strengthening authoritarianism; welcomes the first application of the conditionality mechanism in the case of Hungary, procedure launched in November 2021 and concluded in December 2022 with the freezing of 55% of three cohesion policy programmes (around EUR 6,35 billion), although the facts would have justified the freezing of 100%; reiterates its strong conviction that Member States must respect democracy and the rule of law in order to receive Union funds and draws attention to the Commission that the rule of law situation has also been deteriorating in other Member States, calls therefore on the Commission to trigger without delay the application of the conditionality mechanism whenever breaches of the principles of the rule of law are identified to be affecting or are in serious risk of affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way; moreover stresses that Parliament, Council and the Commission need to closely co-operate together as alliwhile reinforcing the institutional checks and balances ; underlines its strong and repeated requests to the Commission and executive agencies to ensure the protection of the Union budget by making global and systematic use of digital and automated systems for reporting, monitoring and audit;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need to enlarge the areas where the EDES is used beyond direct management and requests the Commission to use it for all Union funds including funds under shared management: notes that, the EDES has to be used systematically to ensure that companies and beneficial owners who have been convicted in relation to fraud, corruption or other serious economic criminal activities cannot benefit from Union funds; stresses the need to harmonise the indicators in ARACHNE with the exclusion grounds of EDES to ensure that excluded economic operators are also visible in ARACHNE; calls for maximum interoperability between ARACHNE, EDES and other software to reduce the need to insert information items into various IT systems multiple times and keep the administrative burden as low as possible; believes that not more but better targeted control systems are needed, including the use of new technologies in order to fight fraud, corruption or other serious economic criminal activities that cannot benefit from Union funds;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates the imperative need of a single mandatory integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system provided by the Commission, allowing for the electronic recording and storage of data on the recipients of Union funding, including their beneficial owners and allowing for the availability of this information for data-mining and risk- scoring purposes; underlines that it is essential to get a clear overview of the distribution and potential concentration of Union funds disbursed, including through a functionality that allows for the aggregation of these funds; underlines that this would reduce the bureaucratic burden on the financial actors, on controllers and auditors, as well as on the recipients of Union funds, and should facilitate risk assessment for the purposes of selection, award, financial management, monitoring, investigation, control and audit and would also contribute to effective prevention, detection, correction and follow-up of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest, double funding and other irregularities; notes that this digitalisation is overdue and indispensable given the cross-border nature of misuse of funds, fraud, misappropriations, conflicts of interests, double-funding and other systemic problems; underlines that this single datamining tool should be easily searchable and available for OLAF, EPPO and the Commission, in order to enhance the protection of the Union budget and Next Generation EU against irregularities, fraud and conflicts of interests;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates the need to better balance the further simplification of rules and procedures with better controls over the most repeated areas of irregular spending, develop mandatory training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin- offs, start- ups, administration and payment agencies and all other relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned about the increasing number and complexity of the Commission’s quasi-legal instruments such as opinions, recommendations, communications, non-legislative resolutions, notices, guidance documents and statements of administrative priorities; calls on the Commission to simplify and streamline these instruments; Recalls the REFIT programme to simplify EU rules and reduce unnecessary burdens, while achieving the benefits of legislation (REFIT programme) and by introducing the ‘one in, one out’ approach. Asks for the systematic application by the Commission of the principle that means that newly introduced burdens are offset by removing equivalent burdens in the same policy area;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates the need to step up the efforts in the fight against fraud both at Union and Member State level, in close cooperation with the EPPO and OLAF; appreciates the remarkable efforts and stresses the role of the EPPO in the investigation and prosecution of fraud and other criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union; highlights the importance of the EPPO’s full independence and impartiality for the effective exercise of its functions; recalls the importance of providing the EPPO and OLAF with sufficient financial and human resources; invites the Commission to urgently take action on the requests made by the EPPO on its budgetary implementation, so that the EPPO can become a fully effective prosecution office;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the RRF's contribution to preventing a strong economic downturn following the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that the RRF has been instrumental in making progress with the implementation of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) stemming from the European Semester in almost all Member States; notes however that several CSRs remain unaddressed, despite the financial incentives stemming from the RRF;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned by the findings of the Court in its first annual assessment of the RRF; considers that the implementation of the RRF takes place under time pressure, with however a much more straight forward delivery model that puts much, lighter requirements on the Commission, and reduces the control burden from the Commission towards the Member States, in particular in comparison with the cohesion policy; is therefore concerned by the types of findings of the Court which fundamentally calls into question whether the Commission can handle even this reduced control burden; calls on the Commission not to apply the performance based delivery model as used in the implementation of the RRF for other policies until the advantages and disadvantages are more clear, following the evaluation of the implementation of the RRF by 20 February 2024; calls on the Commission to assess the advantages and disadvantages of this performance-based delivery model as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the RRF due by 20 February 2024; welcomes the publication of the Framework for assessing milestones and targets under the RRF regulation and the Commission methodology for the determination of payment suspension under the RRF regulation in the Commission Communication “Recovery and Resilience Facility : Two years on, a unique instrument at the heart of the EU’s green and digital transformation”;1a _________________ 1a https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/ 2023-02/COM_2023_99_1_EN.pdf
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Expresses concern about the limited number of cross-border projects under the RRF, which calls into question the Union added value of this instrument;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Encourages the Commission, the ECA and the Council to work towards accelerating the discharge process to N+1;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Calls on the Commission to continue promoting a gender balance and gender budgeting approach as well as a better geographical balance in the allocated funds; calls on the Commission to urgently develop gender mainstreaming methodology in order to integrate a gender equality perspective in all policy areas;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes that, despite the fact that the Court considers the RRF expenditure accepted in the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 as legal and regular in all material respects, there is one milestone in the payment to Spain that is not satisfactorily fulfilled, casting doubt. However doubts remain on the Commission’s assessment of the milestone and targets associated with the related RRF expenditure; recalls that the only reason the identified error was not quantified was the absence of aa strong methodology ofor partial payments by the Commissionwould permit to quantify identified error found in one Member State;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. NoteConsiders that, despite the fact that the Court considers the RRF expenditure accepted in the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 as legal and regular in all material respects, there is one milestone in the payment to Spain that ia Member State found to be non-material can be regarded as not satisfactorily fulfilled, casting doubt on the Commission’s assessment of the milestone and targets associated with the related RRF expenditur did not assess all criteria associated with the milestone; recalls that the only reCommission has on the identified error was not quantified was the absence of a methodology for partial payments by the Commission21st of February 2023 published the framework for assessing the milestones and targets under the RRF regulation and welcomes this increased transparency;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Calls on the Commission to take initiatives such as technical assistance to increase the absorption rate in the Member States on a permanent basis; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the progress of implementation in Member States, in particular in the cases of under-implementation and low absorption rates and to deliver a country- analysis to the discharge authority, identifying the recurrent problems, as well as the measures taken to optimise the situation;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes with concern that at the end of 2021, total outstanding commitments reached a record high of EUR 341,6 billion; highlights that outstanding commitments are likely to exceed EUR 460 billion in 2023 but that they will then normally fall as NGEU draws to a close; underlines that a certain level of outstanding commitments is a logical consequence of the Union budget system with commitment appropriations and payment appropriations but recalls that a too important amount of outstanding commitments can constitute a risk for the smooth operation of the budget in the future;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – point a
Paragraph 43 – point a
a. ensure the protection of the Union budget by making general and systematic use of digital and automated systems for reporting, monitoring and audit (ARACHNE, EDES etc.) and urgently establish a compulsory integrated and interoperable system building on, but not limited to, existing tools and databases in the context of the upcoming revisions of the Financial Regulation; develop the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard to ensure that the description of milestones and the target and outcome of the audit are transparent; ensure that all Member States use the systems and central registers to report on beneficial owners and end beneficiaries;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – point e
Paragraph 43 – point e
e. work with the Court to align the respective risk categorisation methodologies and the audit working methodologies;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Notes with concern that Customs duties are at risk of either not being declared or being declared incorrectly to the national customs authorities by importers; highlights that these evaded amounts, known as the ‘customs gap’, are not captured in Member States’ TOR accounting systems and do not fall within the scope of the Court’s audit opinion on revenue; notes with concern that the customs gap may affect the amounts of duties established by Member States; is worried that, according to the Court, for a third year in a row, the Union actions taken to reduce the gap and mitigate the risk that TOR are not complete; is worried that serious weaknesses persist since several years in Member States’ accounting and management of TOR; notes with concern the insufficient progress on a number of actions of the Commission’s Customs Action Plan;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Notes with concern that the rules for declaring personnel costs under H2020 remain complex, despite simplification efforts, and their calculation remains a major source of error in the cost claims; regrets that one of the main causes of error is the incorrect application of the methodology for calculating personnel costs; emphasises therefore that streamlining of the H2020 rules for the declaration of personnel costs and wider use of simplified cost options, such as unit costs, lump sums and flat rates, is a precondition to stabilise error rates to below materiality level; draws attention to the Court’s observation that private entities, in particular SMEs and new entrants, are prone to error;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 – point f
Paragraph 71 – point f
f. increase awareness, coherence, and sustainability of the support to SME internationalisation; Reiterates the need to simplify rules and procedures, develop compulsory training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies and all others relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
Paragraph 87
87. Takes note that the Court, in its Special Report 14/2022 “The Commission’s response to fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy” found that fraud risks vary between the CAP payment schemes; welcomes that the Commission has taken action on fraud spending; regrets that according to the Court, the actions taken by the Commission were not sufficiently proactive in addressing certain fraud risks, such as illegal ‘land- grabbing’; emphasises that weaknesses in Member States’ checks are prone to be exploited by the fraudsters and that the Commission should monitor national anti-fraud measures better, provide more concrete guidance, and promote the use of new technologies for preventing and detecting fraud; notes with concern that some paying agencies have indicated a need for more practical advice from the Commission;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
Paragraph 89
89. Notes with concern that the Court, in its Special Report 10/2022 “LEADER and community-led local development facilitates local engagement but additional benefits still not sufficiently demonstrated” found that local action groups facilitate local engagement but involve additional costs and slow approval processes; is worried that additional benefitsstresses that there is little evidence to suggest that LEADER’s additional benefits justify its costs compared to other types of funding; call on the Commission to perform a thorough and in-depth evaluation of LEADER and the community-led local development are still not demonstratedpproach to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and added value of LEADER and to inform the discharge authority about the outcome;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Furthermore, calls on the Commission to consider the activities employed by DG CNECT for the Horizon Europe Funds in support of SMEs, such as webinars and coordinator days, and copy successful elements of DG CNECT’s approach to the EDF, notably to give more specific knowledge of Union funding to SMEs and decrease the administrative burden for them;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 – point b
Paragraph 116 – point b
b. continue its work to ensure a fair geographical balance of its staff at all levels, and especially at senior management level, where strong imbalances persist, while at the same time fulfilling the requirements in the staff regulation regarding competences and merits of candidates; Stresses that according to the Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, the Commission like all European institutions, must ensure that all Member States are proportionally represented;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
Paragraph 124
124. Notes the Court’s observation regarding the RRF in its 2021 Annual Report concerning the first payment request from Spain; notes thate limitations of the Court's assessedment of the Commission’s ex-ante work on all milestones associated with the payment to Spain in 2021; observes that it will not be possible for the Court to assess all milestones associated with future payments; due to the absence of the methodology for calculating the amount of suspension of, or reduction in, payments if milestones and/or targets are not being achieved; welcomes the publication of the Commission's framework assessing fulfilment of milestones and targets and its methodology to determine the amount to be suspended in case of a Member State's partial achievement of the milestones and targets related to a payment request;1a _________________ 1a https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/ 2023-02/COM_2023_99_1_EN.pdf
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. Is worried by the Court’s serious finding that for the payment made to Spain in 2021, one milestone was not satisfactorily fulfilled; regrets to note that the Court was not able to quantify this error because of the absence of a methodology to quantify the impact of (partially) not achieving a milestone or target; notes the Commission’s Internal Auditor also observed the absence of this methodology; considers it grave negligence ofregrets that the Commission todid not have thisa stronger methodology in place before making payments, as this calls into question the Commission’s sincerity of assess; regrets that not all Member States make use of the Commission’s data-mining and risk- scoring tool for identifying projects, beneficiaries and contractors at risk of fraud, conflict of interest and irregularities under the RRF; notes that five of the Member States ing the satisfactory fulfilment of milestonCourt's audit sample (Greece, Spain, France, Croatia and Italy) will use the Commission’s data mining and risk scoring tool; recalls that a common data- mining and risk-scoring tool is a key element in protecting the EU’s financial interests and, more specifically, in preventing fraud, conflicts of interest and targetsdouble funding, and in increasing transparency and accountability;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. Is worried by the Court’s serious finding that for the payment made to Spaina Member State in 2021, one milestone was not satisfactorily fulfilled; regrets to according to the Court; notes that the Court was not able to quantify this error because of; notes the Commission’s Internal Auditor observed the absence of a methodology to quantify the impact of (partially) not achieving a milestone or a target; notes the Commission’s Internal Auditor also observed the absence of this methodology; considers it grave negligence of the Commission to not have this methodology in place before making payconsiders it necessary to have this methodology in place and therefore welcomes the inclusion in Annex I of the Commission Communication “Recovery and Resilience Facility : Two years on, a unique instruments, ast this calls into question the Commission’s sincerity of assessing the satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targete heart of the EU’s green and digital transformation” which details the framework for assessing milestones and targets under the RRF regulation and the increased transparency that the publication of this framework provides;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
Paragraph 126
126. NoteRegrets that the Commission’s Internal Audit Service did not perform any audit engagement as regards the NGEU programme in 2021; notes that the Internal Auditor draws attention to the need to continue work on control design and implementation of appropriate financial management, and audit and control strategies; considers the Internal Auditor to be an essential element of internal checks and balances within the Commission and that independent and objective information derived from its own audit activities is indispensable for the Internal Auditor to function effectively; underlines that the work by the Court as external auditor cannot substitute the work of the Internal Audit Service;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 127
Paragraph 127
127. Recalls the CONT committee’s opinion to the committee on Budgets and the committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation establishing the RRF; recalls the call therein for a list of all final beneficiaries and projects of the Facility; considers that Article 22(2) (d) of that Regulation puts the requirement on the Member States to keep these records, and that the provisions in Article 22(3) call for making the data concerned available in the framework of discharge, for the discharge authority; regrets the lack of information on how the Commission protects the European Union’s financial interests while disbursing payments;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130
Paragraph 130
130. Notes the Commission’s approach to adherence to procurement and state aid rules in the investments under the RRP is to rely on national systems, and revert to infringement procedures when cases of non-compliance in Member States are detected; considers that the protection of the Union financial interests is not timely guaranteed and does not necessarily target the beneficiaries that enjoyed an unfair advantage of the cases of non- compliance; acknowledges that the first responsibility in this regard lies with the Member States; recalls the repeated findings by the Court as reflected in previous discharge reports that the work of certain national authorities is too error- prone and unreliable; stresses therefore that the Commission has the residual responsibility to make sure that effective and efficient internal control systems are in place, and to step in where Member States do not act as is required by the RRF Regulation;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134 a (new)
Paragraph 134 a (new)
134 a. Calls on the Commission to initiate a dedicated and detailed Scoreboard for the Rule of Law milestones, taking into account the reforms of Member States and the degree to which they comply with the milestones and CJEU case law, with the input of all competent Commission services and independent academic and civil society contributions;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. Considers that the element of Union funding beingit is important to ensure that the additional to natity of Unional funding is not satisfactorily communicated by the Commission, and that it cannot be excluded with certainty that money from the RRF is used to replace national expenditure; considers an analysis of national expenditure is necessary to see if the funding made available through the RRF is truly additional and was not used to substitute recurring national expenditure, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the RRF Regulation; considers in this regard that it is unclear what has happened with the payments and pre-financing received by Member States for which no investment related costs were incurred yetshould be guaranteed throughout the implementation of the RRF; calls on the Commission to perform relevant audits and controls to certify such additionality;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145
Paragraph 145
145. Notes the statements made by Commission representatives that all payments will go towards the investments made under the RRF, so that after a certain time lag where instalments are paid out for reforms as well, by August 2026, the total amount of payments will have been spent on investments; rRecalls the Court’s finding that the Commission, in its assessment of all National RRPs , gave a ‘B-rating’ for the cost estimates of these investments, calling into question the accuracy of the amounts involved; underlines in the light of the Commission’s statement the problematic fact that of front-loading reforms and back-loading investments in the RRPs; reiterates its concern that this only amplifies the risk that Member States might not request the last payment tranche, and thus might fail to fulfil all reforms and investments after having received the largest part of their total financial support under the RRF; emphasises that the discharge authority cannot wait to receive full clarity on the proper use of Union funds until after the end of made under the RRF;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145 a (new)
Paragraph 145 a (new)
145 a. Underlines in the light of the Commission’s statement the problematic fact of front-loading reforms and back- loading investments in the RRPs; reiterates its concern that this only amplifies the risk that Member States might not request the last payment tranche, and thus might fail to fulfil all reforms and investments after having received the largest part of their total financial support under the RRF; emphasises that the discharge authority cannot wait to receive full clarity on the proper use of Union funds until after the end of the RRF;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146
Paragraph 146
146. Notes that it is important that all funds allocated to the Member States under the RRF will result in investments and reforms, as only then the discharge authority can be sure that all funds were allocated to final beneficiaries in full respect of the principle of additionality; recalls the criticism expressed in previous discharge reports of the practice that some Member States systematically overbook funding programmes in shared management and withdraw projects from Union funds when irregularities and/or fraud are discovered in its related expenditure, thereby effectively evading Union investigations and/or an effective follow-up and possible corrections; deplores that the burden of these irregularities and possible fraud is shifted to the national budget, and thus, the national tax-payer;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 147 a (new)
Paragraph 147 a (new)
147 a. Stresses that compliance with the milestones can only be established on the basis of a detailed assessment and clear and fixed criteria, and not on the basis of political negotiations;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 153 – point c a (new)
c a. assess the Member States’ fulfilment of the Rule of Law milestones in the RRPs on the basis of a detailed assessment, clear and fixed criteria, and fully in line with CJEU case law, not merely looking at the formal adoption of reform legislation but also at the legal and practical application, and not on the basis of political negotiations;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point c b (new)
Paragraph 153 – point c b (new)
c b. not approve any payment request unless all Rule of Law milestones have been fully met;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point l
Paragraph 153 – point l
l. only accept milestones and targets for which is has received documentation supporting its implementation, and not just statements of Member States; requests in that regard a re-assessment of the fulfilment of milestone 215 in the Spanish payment request by a qualified IT-expert, accompanied by a declaration of assurance by an IT-auditor, taking account of the requirements of the milestone and its related measure, and the statements of the Commission in its assessment that the milestone has been satisfactorily fulfilled;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point n
Paragraph 153 – point n
n. closely monitor fulfilment of milestones and targets, given negative experience with the first payment request handled by the Commission, and the non- satisfactory fulfilment of one milestone, in particular also those where additional milestones were considered necessary forrelated to audit, monitoring and control purposes;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point r
Paragraph 153 – point r
r. address the tension between cohesion and the RRF, in particular concerning the involvement of local, regional, economic and social partners and civil society organisations, that makes it easier to absorb RFRF funding in comparison to cohesion funding, by putting more emphasis on involvement of these actors in the implementation of the RRF;
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point t
Paragraph 153 – point t
t. include instrengthen, where relevant, its system audits in the Member States for each internal control system (in case of decentralised or implementation methods) a minimum; to ensure a minimum reasonable number of 25 tests of individual procurement files under the RRF in order to not just provide assurance on the set-up of the internal control system in all Member States, but also onin order to guarantee the effectiveness in practice of the internal control systems;
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point u
Paragraph 153 – point u
u. make sure checks on double funding are included in the Member States’ audit and control frameworks for the NGEU, Rural development and Cohesion programmes and to ensure its proper functioning through system checks; calls in addition on the Commission to verify that double funding does not take place by performing risk based checks on all payments to final beneficiaries under these programmes;