9 Amendments of Ingeborg GRÄSSLE related to 2016/2151(DEC)
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Deeply regretQuestions why that the director general of Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, as in previous years, continues to issue a horizontal reservation covering all payments and cost claims under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7); calls on the director generalCommission to develop, at long last, a more meaningful, risk based approach and use specific reservations when needed;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Regrets that the Court found that the current setup does not enable the Commission to monitor and report separately the spending and performance of research and development (R&D) and innovation within Horizon 2020; in addition, while the financial contribution of Horizon 2020 within Europe 2020 is well established in the budgetary process through the published programme statements, it is regrettable that the Commission has not yet reported on the implementation of Horizon 2020 and its contribution to Europe 2020 in a meaningful way; invites the Commission to report on the implementation of Horizon 2020 and its contribution to Europe 2020 in a meaningful way as results of the programme become available;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Regrets that that the target to invest 3% of Member States’ gross domestic product (GDP) into research by 2020 will most likely not be met; calls on all Member States to rise to the challenge. Calls on the Commission to draw the necessary conclusions for mid –term revision of the MFF and for the next MFF;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105
Paragraph 105
105. RegretsQuestions why that the director general of DG R&I issued again, as in previous years, a horizontal reservation concerning all cost claims under FP7 (EUR 1,47 billion); is of the opinion that horizontal reservations in general cannot be considered as instrument of sound financial management; acknowledges however that certain parts of FP7 expenditure were not covered by a reserve where there was evidence that the risks (and so the residual error rates) were significantly lower than for all expenditure; within RTD this applies to expenditure given Joint Undertakings; outside DG RTD this also applies to expenditure by the Research Executive Agency under the Marie Curie programme, and all expenditure from the European Research Council Executive Agency;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110
Paragraph 110
110. Regrets furthermore that the first monitoring report on Horizon 2020 gave only little information about synergy effects between the programme and structural funds88 ; invites the Commission to report on these synergy effects as results of the programme become available; _________________ 88 European Court of Auditors, Annual Report 2015, point 3.22
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174 – point e
Paragraph 174 – point e
(e) monitor and actively supports the certification bodies in improving their work and methodology on the legality and regularity of expenditure and in particular in delivering opinions on the legality and regularity of the CAP expenditure of a quality and scope which enable the Commission to ascertain the reliability of Paying agencies' control data or, where appropriate, estimate the necessary adjustment of Paying agencies' error rates on the basis of those opinions, with a view to implement the single audit approach in the area of agricultural spending;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 51 a (new)
Subheading 51 a (new)
International Management Group (IMG)
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 203 a (new)
Paragraph 203 a (new)
203a. Congratulates the Commission on the outcome of proceedings in Case T- 381/15 on 2 February 2017; asks which contracts with IMG are still underway at present;
Amendment 332 #
214a. Notes that the College of Commissioners lifted the OLAF Director- General's immunity, following a request by Belgian authorities, in the context of investigations linked to the "Dalli case"; is of the opinion that the Director-General is confronted with a three-fold conflict of interest: – while the College was in the process of deciding on lifting his immunity, the Director-General considered the possibility of opening OLAF investigations against Members of the Commission, – once the College had taken its decision to lift his immunity, the Director- General took legal action against the Commission for an alleged irregularity in the adoption of its decision; at the same time the Director-General continued to represent the Commission on policy matters related to his portfolio, – after the lifting of his immunity had been confirmed, the Belgian public prosecutor opened an investigation into the Director-General's role in the case in question, while continuing to serve as the OLAF Director-General's interlocutor for fighting fraud against the EU's financial interests in Belgium; considers that these conflicts of interest could damage both OLAF's and the Commission's reputation; asks therefore the Commission to place the OLAF Director-General on leave until the end of the investigation conducted by the Belgian authorities, and to appoint a temporary substitute;