Activities of Derek VAUGHAN related to 2013/2195(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission and executive agencies PDF (664 KB) DOC (374 KB)
Amendments (96)
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Commission discharge/Postpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants 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 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a decision 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (formerly the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a decision 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency (formerly the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency (formerly the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a decision 5
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the European Research Council Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a decision 6
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Research Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones its Decision on granting the Director of the Research Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a decision 7
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (formerly the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/20061a; _____________ 1a OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Commission’'s management should be presented fairly, along with that of the Member States responsible under shared management of funds, with a view to reinforcing public trust in the Institutions;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1
Heading 1
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that, according to the Communication from the Commission on Protection of the European Union budget86 , eight only a limited number of Member States are responsible for 9080 % of the financial corrections in the fields under shared management; __________________ 86 COM(2013) 682, 26 September 2013.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a
Paragraph 5 – point a
(a) step up supervision and control in those Member States with the most dangerous risk profile for the implementation of EUbiggest risk profile in terms of management and control of Union programmes,
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b
Paragraph 5 – point b
(b) continue to suspend payments and halt programmes, if legally possible, in cases where serious shortcomings have occurred,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c
Paragraph 5 – point c
(c) continue to supply meaningful statisticsnecessary financial data, which facilitates a thorough analysis of Member States;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the new rules for the 2014- 2020 programming period, decided through the co-decision procedure, including measures such as the designations of audit and certifying authorities, accreditations of audit authorities, audit examination and acceptance of accounts, financial corrections and net financial corrections, proportional control, ex-ante conditionalities that aim to further contribute to the reduction of the level of error; supports in this respect the growing results orientation and the thematic concentration of cohesion policy that should ensure high added-value of the co- financed operations; welcomes also the definition of serious deficiency and the anticipated increased level of corrections for repeated deficiencies;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that, in the new programming period 2014-2020, net financial corrections can be imposed in the event of serious shortcomingdeficiencies in the implementation of cohesion policy and will remain the standard in the area of agriculture;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 a (new)
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 a (new)
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. StressNotes that the application of netall financial corrections in the field of agriculture does not yet constitute the anticipated progress, as (a) the Commission’s existing internal rules already stipulate that the duration of conformity procedures must not exceedare net corrections; considers it necessary, however, for improvements two years and (b) the so-called ‘new’ criteria and methodology for applyingbe made in the criteria and methods of application of net financial corrections mentibeyoned in Annex I to the Communication refer explicitly to guidelines that will be based on the existing othe guidelines adopted by the Commission as long ago ason 23 December 1997;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 b (new)
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 b (new)
Cohesion Policy
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that it depends on many factors whether the new instrument will lead to more net corrections and hence to a lower error rate in cohesion policy; considers it problematic, moreover, that there are ways in which Member States can avoid net financial corrections (no limit on the replacement of projects until 15 February of year ‘n+1’, no time limit on notification by Member States of their own past errors, protracted objection procedures);
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the effectiveness of this instrument also cannot yet be assessed because its application depends on the drafting and adoption of a delegated actetail adopted in a delegated act expected in April 2014;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes furthermore that thsome audit reports of the Member States, on which constitute one of the elements feeding into the Commission’s risk analysis is based, are themselves often faulty and therefore unreliable; notes furthermore that the Court of Auditors only recently confirmed that ‘(…) the European Commission cannot unquestioningly rely on the results of audits performed by the Member States in relation to EU regional funding appropriations’88 ; __________________ 88 Press release ECA/13/47 of the Court of Auditors on Special Report 16/2013 on the ’single audit’, 18 December 2013.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 4
Heading 1 - Subheading 4
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is not prepared to accept the situationRemains very concerned that for years the majority of the errors identified by the Court ought to be have been identified by the Member States themselves; considers, therefore, that in some Member States the audit results and procedures constitute an inadequate basis for assessments and financial corrections by the Commission, and expects significant improvements in this regard in the funding period 2014- 2020;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Observes that the error rate in the field of rural development is 7.9 %; is concerned that the Commission does not anticipate , environment, fisheries and health is 7.9 %; regrets that due to the delay between payment claims, payments, controls and reported statistics, no significanyt improvemenact ion the situationerror rate can be expected before 2014, although an action plan was adopted in 2012t the earliest;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out in particular that, despite decisions on flat-rate corrections, the errors detected in 2006 in France and Portugal were still not fully remedied by the two Member States in 2012; stresses that from 2006 to 2013 direct payments were made whose legality and regularity were not fully guaranteed and highlights that European tax-payers’' money has been wrongly paid to final beneficiaries without recovery; notes that significant financial corrections have been imposed by the Commission on both Member States, and calls on the Commission to use further net corrections to cover the entire financial risk to the Union budget posed by these errors;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 6
Heading 1 - Subheading 6
in the field of regional policy, energy and transport
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Observes that there is no evidence that thaccording to the audits of both the Court of Auditors and the Commission, some audit authorities of some Member States are not carrying out their audits with the requisite thoroughness and that it is not sufficiently apparent whether and in what respect they are permanently improving their supervisory and control systems;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls, in the field of agricultural policy, for conformity clearance procedures in standard cases to be completed win less thain two years;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls, in order to remedy shortcomings in LPIS systems, for conformity procedures to be shortened and action plans to be implemented promptly; calls, in the event of failure to comply with the deadlines, for net corrections to be made in the action plans in the Member States concerned as part of the confirmity clearance procedureproportionate reduction and suspension of monthly or intermediate payments to the Member States concerned;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Is aware that forthcoming net financial corrections cannot entail automatic penalties, as this would be contrary to the rule of law; calls, therefore, on the Commission to do everything in its power to shorten the adversarial procedures preceding the imposition of net corrections or interruptions of payments; calls on the Commission to submit a report and a proposal on the subject; undertakes as of now that the European Parliament will support the Commission in this matter if Member States raise objections;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Regards the newly elected Parliament as being in a position to investigCalls on the Commission and all Member States to commit to implementing the actions called for in points [22-30] and to report on progress made; requires thate the reservations in the fields of agriculture and regional policy and lift tCommission presents its progress report to Parliament by the end of 2014; requests that the Council also reports on the implementation of the priority actions falling under Member States' responsibility whemn ift appropriate progress is madedopts its next discharge recommendation;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. CallRecommends that the relevant committees oin the newly elected Parliament to raise the issue of control measures to address the weaknesses in the fields of agricultural and regional policy indicated here at the hearings of the designatedwith members of the new Commission and to demand appropriate pledges in order to improvcontinue improvement in the protection of the EU budget;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls on the newly elected Parliament, in the spirit of the above, to probe all legal means of achieving further legislative improvements, if appropriate, in the context of the mid-term reviews of the Multiannual Financial Frameworkrelevant legislation;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that the most likely error rate for payments in the financial year 2011 was estimated at 3.9 %, in the financial year 2010 at 3.7 % and in the financial year 2009 at 3.3 %; deplores this increase because it reverses the positive trend observed in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; acknowledges, however, that the closing phase of programmes is associated with a rise in error rates;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Welcomes the fact that while the Commission succeeded in rapidly imposing a significant number of financial corrections in 2012 whilst many, some financial corrections are in general made manymade a number of years after the initial disbursement of funds; is critical of the fact that the EU budget incursoverly long procedures create additional administrative costs and losses of revenue and interest due to excessively protracted procedures;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Notes that the 2012 accounts record a EUR 1.8 billion financial correction on the 2000-2006 use of cohesion policy funds in Spain, which corresponds to 49 % of the total corrections in 2012; regrets that in acc and acknowledges this as an impordtance witht example of cuorrent rules, authorities in Spain were entitled to further funding amounting to EUR 1 390 millionctive action being carried out where deficiencies were identified;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Takes note that 142 directors-general and two directors of executive agencies made a total of 23 quantified reservations related to the expenditure and that the Director-General of DG Budget qualified his declaration on revenue;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Points out that, as the Commission quantifies the amount at risk at between 1.,9 % (EUR 2.,6 billion) and 2.,6 % (EUR 3.,5 billion) of total payments for the year, it acknowledg; notes that the level of error in expenditure is likely to be material, especially since the Commission itself states that amounts at risk in a number of areas, in particular rural development, are likely to be underestimated;variable due to the different quality of audit and control at Member State level,
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. ConsiderNotes that the comparison made by the Commission’s Synthesis Report of the total for ‘amounts at risk’ with the average level of financial corrections over the last years should be put into context (timing and impact of the financial corrections on Member States and beneficiaries, likely underestimation of the amounts at risk andumulative financial corrections implemented to end of 2012 for ERDF, Cohesion Fund and ESF programmes in the current programming period amount to 0,2%, and considers that the error rates in the Court of Auditors' Annual Report should be seen in the context of the EUR 4,5 billion in financial corrections implemented for 2012, for which there is no re-use of the funds);
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
Paragraph 66
66. Notes the cuts in payments brought by the Council, which have resulted in decreases in payment appropriations as compared to the adopted budgets; underlines that Council keeps following its strategy to artificially cut the level of payments, without taking into consideration real needs, and notes with concern that the substantial gap between appropriations for commitment and payment, coupled with a large amount of underspending at the start of the current2007-2013 programming period, has caused a build-up equivalent to two years and three months’' worth of unused commitments;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. NStresses that the recurrent shortages of payment appropriations have been the main cause of the unprecedentedly high level of RALs especially in the last years of the 2007 -2013 MFF; notes with deep concern that the Commission is finding it increasingly difficult to meet all requests for payments in the year within the budget appropriations for payment and that the cumulative total of appropriations available for payments over the period 2007-2013 has exceeded the cumulative total of payment appropriations available over the same period by EUR 114 million; notes that this is EUR 64 billion more than the difference of EUR 50 billion between the total of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations envisaged in the financial framework;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Expresses concern over the fact that the Commission’'s outstanding budgetary commitments for which payments and/or decommitments have not yet been made increased by EUR 10 billion to EUR 217 billion and that EUR 16.2 billion of claims for payment were outstanding at the end of 2012 (EUR 10.7 billion at the end of 2011 and EUR 6.4 billion at the end of 2010); is further concerned that 52 % of the payment appropriations requested in the draft budget 2014 are devoted to the completion of 2007 - 2013 MFF programmes;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68 a (new)
Paragraph 68 a (new)
68a. Deplores that the European Commission's DG for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection was unable to honour EUR 60 million of its payment obligations in a timely way in 2012 (and EUR 160 million in 2013) with grave consequences for both vulnerable people and those NGOs trying to support them; given the urgent lifesaving nature, rapid project cycle and modest budget (EUR 2 per citizen per year) involved in the Union emergency response, calls on the Commission and the budgetary authority to recognise the exceptional nature and specificity of these actions by ensuring matching levels of commitment and payment appropriations for humanitarian aid in the annual budgetary cycle;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Deplores the fact that for the majority of transactions affected by error in shared management areas (e.g. agriculture and cohesion), the Member State authorities had sufficient information to detect and correct the errors; calls, therefore, on the Member States and the Commission once again to urgently reinforce first-level checks to address this unacceptably high level of mismanagement; when weaknesses in the management and control systems in Member States are found, calls for the Commission to protect the Union budget by applying financial correction in these cases;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Notes that the lack of reliability of the first-level checks performed by somea limited number of Member States undermines the credibility of the annual activity reports drafted by the Commission services and the Synthesis Report adopted by the Commission, as they are partially based on the results of the checks performed by the national authorities; reiterates, consequently, its previous demand that the Commission establish reliable and objective annual activity reports;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. In particular, points out that the most frequent accuracy errors relate to over- declarations of land and to administrative errors, and that the larger accuracy errors relate mostly to excessive payments for permanent pasture; regrets that cross- checks of declared parcels with the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) in certain Member States failed to detect some over-declarations because the LPIS database is only reliable to a limited extentpartially reliable;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. NWhile taking note of the Commission's view that cross-compliance triggers administrative penalties, notes that the Court of Auditors also takes into accounts of breaches of cross- compliance requirements i when calculating the error rate98 ; __________________ 98 Footnote 15, point 3.9 of the annual report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2012.
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Deplores the fact that the results of this new approach confirm that only limited assurance can be gained from thecertain Member States’' inspection statistics, from the declarations of the directors of paying agencies and from the work carried out by the certification bodies; calls for this new approach to extend to all CAP expenditure in DG AGRI's next Annual Activity Report;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99
Paragraph 99
99. Deeply rRegrets that the Commission has not fully implemented theout of seven recommendations issued by the Court of Auditors in its annual reports for the financial years 2009 and 2010, only two were implemented in most respects and four in some respects by the Commission;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102
Paragraph 102
102. Deplores in this regard that deficiencies were detected by the Court of Auditors and the Commission in the LPIS systems in Portugal and in France in the course of the 2006/2007 audits, whilst the Director- General of DG AGRI only entered a reservation accompanied by an action plan on these grounds as regards Portugal in his DG’s annual activity report of 2011 and as regards France in 2012;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
103. Considers that this practice of delaye adverse effects on effective Union budget protection can result from any delay in making the reservation to be accompanied by an action plan does not fully guarantee that the budget of the European Union is well protected, request for an action plan and points out that the Commission bears particular responsibility in this regard;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105
Paragraph 105
105. Shares the concern voiced by the Court of Auditors as regards the length of the conformity procedure leading to the financial corrections (paragraph 4.31 of the annual report of the ECA for 2012) and deeply deplores the fact that a sample of conformity procedures showed that in 2012 the actual time, more than four years, was twice that set downas long as in the Commission's internal guidelines, which resultinged in a considerable backlog and therefore ultimately substantial losses to the EU budget; calls on the Commission to take all possible steps to ensure that the duration of conformity procedures is reduced to a maximum of two years101 ; __________________ 101 See also the answer to Written Question No 12 to Commissioner Cioloş, hearing of 17 December 2013: average duration of audits with financial corrections after conciliation procedure 1124 days.
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
Paragraph 112
112. Reiterates its regret that in 2012 the Commission followsed different methodologies to quantify public procurement errors in the policy areas of agriculture and cohesion, both of which furthermore are not in line with the Court of Auditors’' methodology, and calls on the Commission and the Court of Auditors to harmonise the treatment of public procurement errors in theseand to report two policy areas without delaythe discharge authority on the changes;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has increased the total amount of financial corrections in recent years whilst reducing the proportion of flat-rate corrections significantly in 2012; recognises that under certain circumstances flat-rate corrections can also be an appropriate means to protect the Union budget;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121
Paragraph 121
121. Shares nevertheless the concern expressed by the Court of Auditors that the use of flat-rate corrections does not sufficiently take into account the nature and gravity of the infringement and that the length of the procedure is a persi; considers that the criteria for imposing flat rate corrections should be strent problem with conformity decisiongthened in order to address this weakness;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
Paragraph 126
126. Calls on the Commission to draw up an action plan in order to reduce the error rate in rural development not only bycontinue to providinge guidance and assistance to the Member States by means of best practice but also by means of, through systematic interruptions of payments, imposition of financial corrections gearedaccording to the seriousnessverity of the errors, and also, in addition, by drawing up short- term and ad hoc action plans;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
128. Stresses that this assertion makes it difficult for the budgetary authority to reach objective conclusions as to whether or not to grant the dischargCalls on the Commission and Member States to formally pledge to the discharge authority that they will implement the actions referred to under points [22-30] in order to aim for a reduction of the error rates in the future;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130
Paragraph 130
130. Consialls, in orders that the way in which the Commission addresses the deficiencies detected in the LPIS system (excessively long conformity procedures lo remedy shortcomings in LPIS systems, for action plans to be implemented promptly; calls, in the event of failure to comply with the deadling to the flat-rate corrections with delayed inclusion of action plans and reservations in the annual activity reports)es, for proportionate reduction and suspension of monthly or intermediate payments to the Member States concerned in order to avoid createsing a financial risk to the budget of the European Union;.
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131
Paragraph 131
131. Points out in particular that, despite decisions on flat-rate corrections, the errors detected in 2006 in France and Portugal were still not fully remedied by the two Member States in 2012; stresses that from 2006 to 2013 direct payments were made whose legality and regularity were not fully guaranteed and highlights that European tax-payers’' money has been wrongly paid to final beneficiaries without a legal basis and without being recovered; notes that significant financial corrections have been imposed by the Commission on both Member States, and calls on the Commission to use further net corrections to cover the entire financial risk to the Union budget posed by those errors;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133
Paragraph 133
133. Stresses nevertheless that these commitments concerning the application of net financial corrections do not represent considerable progress since (a) theNotes that all financial corrections in the field of Agriculture are net cuorrent internal rules of the Commission already stipulate that the duration of the conformity procedures should not exceedctions: considers it necessary, however, for improvements two years106 and (b) the so-called new ’criteria and methodology for applying financial corrections’ mentioned in Annex I to the Communication on the application of net financial corrections on Member States for Agriculture and Cohesion policy, COM (2013) 934, refer explicitly to new guidelines that will be based on the existing obe made in the criteria and methods of application of net financial corrections beyond the guidelines adopted by the Commission on 23 December 1997 107 ; __________________ 106 The Commission has set an indicative internal target by which it aims to complete the conformity clearance procedure. It provides for the entire procedure to be completed within 450 days after the audit took place (without conciliation) and 645 days if the Member State requests conciliation. See ECA special report 7/2010, ‘Audits of the clearance of accounts’, paragraphs 68 to 73 and 98. 107 The precise description for each CAP measure of the key and ancillary controls and the level of flat rates to be applied for each situation resulting from the criteria described in the annex should be fixed in Commission guidelines based on the existing ones which are solidly established and have allowed the Commission to obtain positive rulings from the Court of Justice on most of the cases contested by the Member States.
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
Paragraph 134
134. Stresses in particular that the shortening of the conformity procedure leading to financial corrections announced by the Commission cannot be evaluated before mid-late 2016, which means that Parliament will engage with the matter in the course of the discharge procedure in 2017/2018; stresses that this makes it extremely difficult for the discharge authority to reach objective conclusions as to whether or not the discharge can be granted; acknowledges, however, that the Commission has devised a reliable approach, and recalls that the same conclusions should be drawn regarding the rural development situation;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. For this reason, reserves its position as regards the regularity of transactions and the effectiveness of systems in the common agricultural policy (direct payments and rural development); will lift this reservation only on the basis of a commitment to fully protect the budget of the European Union given by the relevant Commissioners-designate during the parliamentary hearing preceding their appointment as Members of the Commission in 2014 and on condition that convincing plans for doing so are presented;Calls on the newly elected Parliament to demand appropriate pledges from the Commission and Member States in order to improve protection of the Union budget
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 140
Paragraph 140
140. Considers it unacceptable that, for years, errors of the same kind continue to be identified, often in the same Member States and acknowledges that the increasing level of suspension and interruption of payments by the Commission ensures that corrective actions are systematically carried out in cases where deficiencies are identified;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 142
Paragraph 142
142. Observes that the Court audited the supervisory and control systems of four audit authorities in four countries, finding the systems in Belgium (Wallonia), Malta and the United Kingdom (England, in the case of ESF) to be only partially effective, while it found the systems in Slovakia to be effective;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 143
Paragraph 143
143. AcknowledgWelcomes that, since 2009, 62 of the 112 audit authorities have been checked by the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy and the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; observes that these audit authorities are responsible for 257 of the 317 ERDF/CF operational programmes and 48 of the 117 ESF operational programmes; observes, furthermore, that the audit authorities examined during the four-year period were responsible for 95 % of the ERDF/CF appropriations for the 2007-2013 programming period;
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 144
Paragraph 144
144. ObservNotes with concern that the Court audited the reports by national audit authorities on 138 ERDF/CF and ESF operational programmes and in many cases found shortcomings in them; notes that the Commission stresses in this connection that in cases in which the Commission judged the reported error rate to be unreliable, flat- rate corrections were made where appropriate;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 147
Paragraph 147
147. Calls on the Commission, duringWelcomes the audit strategy for the 2014-2020 programming period, itself to audit, by means of random samples taken by itself, all operational programmes which will include random samples of all operational programmes, together with risk based audits of those which have attracted attention because of the level of funding, the frequency of errors or shortcomings in supervisory and control systems;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 148
Paragraph 148
148. Would consider it right for the guidelines for audits by the Commission itself to be laid down in the form of an obligation imposed on itself by the Commission; calls on the Commission already to present them in the run-up to the 2013 budget discharge procedure; callsRecognises that the new regulations place audit obligations on the Commission; calls on the Commission for clear indications, to this end, of the extent to which Member States and programmes which have attracted attention in the past are being subjected to a special audit approach and the extent to which net financial corrections can be accelerated; considers that this approach should also be reflected in forthcoming delegated acts;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150
Paragraph 150
150. NotWelcomes further that between mid- 2010 and November 2013 the Commission performed additional checks on audit authorities, intermediate bodies and beneficiaries (77 audits on more than 70 operational programmes in 16 Member States) to verify the quality of administrative audits;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153
Paragraph 153
153. Regrets, however, that, under the new ERDF Regulation too,Takes note that Member States macan only replace projects affected by errors which were identified in year ‘n’'n' with new projects, eliminating an essential incentive for the careful use of appropriations; considers that this arrangement should be restricted at the earliest opportunity and fundamentally only until 15 February of the following year and calls for this arrangement to be carefully monitored with a view to a possible re-regulatedion by 2020 at the latest;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154
Paragraph 154
154. Regrets furthermore that the term ‘serious deficiency’, the discovery of which would lead to netcriteria for assessing the systems and for establishing the level of flat rate corrections, wasere not conclusively defined in the Regulation, but left to be fleshed out by a delegated act; now, however, has great expectations of the formulation and implementation of this act;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – introductory part
Paragraph 157 – introductory part
157. Reserves its final judgment of this policy sector in the light of the above considerations, particularly forCalls on the Commission and Member States to commit to the following reasons:
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point a
Paragraph 157 – point a
(a) it is not clear that the audit authorities of someall Member States should take their auditing task seriously and that they makein order to bring about lasting improvements to supervisory and control systems;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point b
Paragraph 157 – point b
(b) it is not clear that the Commission, on the basis of an independent audit procedure, is performing morethe Commission should continue to perform audits of final beneficiaries and granting authorities in year ‘n’ in those Member States which have attracted attention because of shortcomingsere shortcomings have been found in administrative and audit systems in year ’n-1’;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point c
Paragraph 157 – point c
(c) it is not clear that the Commission itselfthe Commission should continue to audits all operational programmes at least once in the course of a programming period;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point d
Paragraph 157 – point d
(d) the time limits in adversarial procedures are too long and should therefore be shortened, and
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point e
Paragraph 157 – point e
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159
Paragraph 159
159. Calls oRecommends that the relevant committees in the newly elected Parliament to raise the issue of control measures to address the weaknesses in the fields of agricultural and regional policy indicated here at the hearings of the designatedin this resolution with members of the new Commission and to demand appropriate pledges in order to improvcontinue improvement in the protection of the EUnion budget;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 162
Paragraph 162
162. Observes that, of the 180 transactions audited by the Court of Auditors, 63 (35 %) were affected by errors; observes that, on the basis of the errors quantified by the Court in 31 transactions, it estimates the likely error rate to be 3.2 %, which means an increase of 1 % in comparison with the previous year; notes that the Commission observes that the error rates would have remained unaltered – i.e. close to the materiality threshold – if the Court had taken account of flat-rate corrections implemented in 2012, and which were especially high (a 25% flat rate) in one Member State;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164
164. Supports the Commission in its objective of introducing across the board in accounts the ‘'simplified cost option’', which has existed since 2007, and calls on Member States to apply simplified costs wherever possible as projects will be less prone to error as a result, as the Court confirms;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 166
Paragraph 166
166. Considers that the Commission’'s plan to use the simplified cost option for 50 % of ESF transactions by 2017 is not ambitious enoughshould be regarded as a minimum and calls on all Member States to ensure that the figure is exceeded by implementing simplified costs ; calls on the Commission to report on progress in implementingation of the simplified cost option by Member States in the run-up to the 2013 discharge procedure;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168
168. Welcomes the submission of the ‘Overview Report on the Results of the Thematic Audit on Management Verifications Conducted by Member States’; observes that the report indicates that the audit authorities display substantial deficiencies: that the reporting lines of the administrative authorities and intermediate bodies display weaknesses, that audits are often purely formal, that public procurement rules are being breached, that the assignment of tasks is not accompanied by training and supervision and that administrative capacities and guidance are lacking, and welcomes the recommendations therein, including simplified cost implementation with simplification seminars in all Member States, enhanced management through dedicated cost verification teams, more on-the-spot controls of beneficiaries, better supervision of delegated bodies and management bodies limiting approvals to what can actually be managed, and action plans whenever deficiencies are found;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171
Paragraph 171
171. Regrets that the 2012 activity report of DG EMPL contains a reservation relating to EUR 68 million of the payments made for the 2007-2013 programming period, pertaining to 27 out of 117 operational programmes (Spain 9, Italy 4, United Kingdom 3) and notes that interruption and suspension procedures were adopted where required;
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174
Paragraph 174
174. Stresses that serious conflicts between the powers of Member States and of the European Union are increasingly common in the field of social policy, calls on the Commission to respect the principle of the welfare state, which is enshrined in the constitutRecalls that the Union´s pursuit of strengthening social cohesion is set out in Article 174 TFEU, and the Union´s obligation to support this goal through European Social Fund is set out in Article 175 TFEU, along with the Commission´s of many Member States, and considers that there is considerable potential for savings on the EU budget herebligation to report on progress towards strong social cohesion and how Union funds have contributed to it;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 175
Paragraph 175
175. Calls for a policy to reduce youth unemployment which possesincreases European added value; regards the role of the EU as being, in particularter-alia, to improve infrastructure for vocational training and further training; calls, in this regard, for an ‘honest’ European subsidy policy which focuses fafor more on transfers of know-how from Member States with low youth unemployment rates to Member States where those rates are high, but without further arousing false expectations and without further making promises on matters for which the European Union cannot assume primary responsibility;
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
Paragraph 177
177. ONotes that Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 did not provide for reporting specifically regarding measures directed at young people during the 2007-2013 period, and therefore observes that European citizens and tax-payers cannot be fully shown what has been achieved by making payments amounting to billions from theuse of ESF and Structural Funds to combat youth unemployment; draws attention to the fact thatnotes that some of those carrying out labour market measures on the ground dispute the alleged failure to keep statistics on them; fully expects that the output and result indicators in the 2014-2020 ESF Regulation will deliver such information, and reminds the Commission of its accountability for the use of European tax revenue for young unemployed people, and considers information on the results of European subsidy policies to be inadequate, particularly in relation to the expectations which have been aroused in terms of reducing youth unemployment;
Amendment 387 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 201
Paragraph 201
201. Observes that the President of the Commission still has not accounted to Parliament for the removal from office of Health Commissioner John Dalli on 16 October 2012 andexplained the resignation of Mr Dalli to the Conference of Presidents in November 2012 insisting on the necessity of respecting the presumption of innocence and notes that the serious accusations of corruption levelled at the Commissioner by the tobacco industry, which he has always rejected, remain unproven to this day;
Amendment 391 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 202
Paragraph 202
202. Strongly deplores the fact that OLAF’s investigation of the accusations has been seriously flawed, according to an analysis by the OLAF Supervisory Committee, and that OLAF refuses to explain matters and is also not being called to accounTakes note of differing legal views between OLAF and its Supervisory Committee as regards some investigation methods used in the case of the former Commissioner John Dalli; notes that there are several legal cases pending in three Member States in the context of the OLAF investigation of ex-Commissioner Dalli; respects the independence of the courts and the principle of non- interference with ongoing legal proceedings; looks forward to receiving the verdicts of the courts which may shed more light into this respectcase of alleged bribery;
Amendment 392 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 203
Paragraph 203
203. Draws attention to the reversal of the burden of proof in this case, such that the focus is not on the culpability of the accused but it is necessary fact that Mr Dalli has contested the voluntary character and the lawfulness of his resignation before the accused himself to seek to prove his innocence before a series of courts,General Court of the European Court of Justice which couldmight result in actions for compensationn award of damages to the detriment of the tax-payer and has also launched an action in defamation against Swedish Match before the Belgian authorities;
Amendment 394 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204
Paragraph 204
204. Calls for complete clarification and for full and prompt cooperation by the Commission with the courts in Belgium and Malta in the Dalli case and for an independent inquiry into the methods used by OLAF in this case;
Amendment 399 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 205
Paragraph 205
205. Notes with concern the large number of suspected fraud cases which the Commission has reported to OLAF but which OLAF has referred back to the Commission; observes that no record is kept of the follow-up measures taken by the CommissionCalls for an analysis of the suspected fraud cases referred back to the Commission in 2012 and 2013; calls on OLAF at least to monitor the follow- up measures to these cases; calls for an analysis of the suspected fraud cases referred back to the Commission in 2012 and 2013;
Amendment 400 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 206
Paragraph 206
206. Is alarmed by the results of two surveys among OLAF staff and the shortcomings which have become apparent in the functioning of OLAF since the reorganisations; calls on the Court of Auditors to perform a follow-up audit and to follow up its Special Report 2/2011 in order to investigateCalls on the Court of Auditors to perform a follow-up audit and to follow up its Special Report 2/2011 on the Management of the European Anti-Fraud Office in order to assess developments in the organisation and the impact of the 2012 reorganisation on investigative capacity and effectiveness and on results;
Amendment 403 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 207
Paragraph 207
207. Calls for an assessment of the existing agreements with the four tobacco groups (Philip Morris International Corporation Inc. (PMI), Japan Tobacco International Corporation, British American Tobacco Corporation and Imperial Tobacco Corporation), taking into account the new Directive on Tobacco Products115 , the ratification of the Protocol to the FCTC Convention116 and Parliament’'s codecisionview on the issue of whether and, if appropriate, how the tobacco cooperation agreement with PMI is to be extended; __________________ 115 Directive 2014/…/EU of the European Directive 2014/…/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of … 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ L …). 116 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.