14.

Reiterates that the Parliament is still waiting for the reply of the Council on the actions and request for documents set out in the two above mentioned resolutions; calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure with comprehensive written answers to the following questions: (a) with regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly, however, it is considered of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members’ questions referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates on the Council discharge in Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure? (b) why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge onwards please present the internal audit in (a) language(s) other than French? (c) has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to make one? (d) until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council’s understanding of ‘respond to the appropriate enquiries’? (e) the Court of Auditors, in its annual report 2009, found that in two out of six procurement procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar cases in the future? (f) staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSRs): Please indicate the staff (all staff, establishment plan and others) — number of posts, grade — for the EUSRs in the Council for 2009. In which way and when will the EUSRs-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the travel budget for each of the EUSRs? How many of the EUSRs’ staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will remain with the Council and why? (g) the Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in point 2.2 in the financial activity report (11327/2010, FIN 278). Has the Council solved the problems concerning Mr Solana’s expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget? (h) what were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc. envisaged by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP)? (i) the HR/VP came into office on 1 December 2009. How was the cost distributed between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)? How did the Council prepare the budget for the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities? (j) how will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council’s plans on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is the anticipated cost for the removals? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) published? (k) what was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) tasks, which were at least part- financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of CFSP expenditure in 2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost in 2009? (l) what was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and elsewhere and where did these meetings take place? (m) what was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operations has been charged to the Union budget? (n) what was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the ‘ATHENA’ mechanism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report? (o) there is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council’s establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on how the Council’s General Secretariat (CGS) functions? Can the CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons for the persistent discrepancy? (p) what is the total number of posts assigned to the task of ‘policy coordination’ and administrative support (as defined in the Commission’s annual staff screening reports)? What percentage of the overall number of posts do these represent? (q) to achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working procedures. How does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? In addition, the Council is asked to report on further measures taken in this respect and in particular those to improve the quality of financial management as well as their impact; (r) the Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the Irish language unit. How many staff members deal with other languages (staff per language)? Are there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the affirmative — how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)? (s) the ‘Reflection Group’ was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? The Council earmarked EUR 1 060 000 for the ‘Reflection Group’. How many posts can be allocated to this group? (t) the expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic (cf. Council note 15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many different budget lines? (u) why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add ‘les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais d’interprétation’ (delegates’ travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) after strong criticism in the last two resolutions from Parliament on the Council discharge? (v) the Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations’ travel expenses; as a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to considerably less than the initial budget, and less than half of the amount available after the transfer (EUR 36 100 000 initial and EUR 48 100 000 available after transfer against EUR 22 700 000 committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 000 000 transfer (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 -point 3.3.2-VI bullet)?? Why is the transfer from interpretation to delegates’ travelling expenses estimated at EUR 12 000 000 by the Council at page 12 and at EUR 10 558 362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is EUR 17 798 362)? In addition, the Council is asked to explain the large amount of recovery orders made before 2009 and carried over to 2009 (EUR 12 300 000) as well as recoveries made from declarations relating to 2007 (EUR 6 300 000); (w) in 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17 800 000 in addition to EUR 15 000 000 earmarked in Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can the CGS provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this? What was the initially projected cost of the Residence Palace Building? Does the Council think the initially projected cost will be accurate or could the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are envisaged to finance the building? (x) implementation of the Council budget — appropriations carried over: Could the Council present the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the year 2009 and therefore carried over? (y) the carry-over to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to EUR 31 800 000. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for this high carry-over ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010? (z) what does ‘technical provision of EUR 25 000 000 for the launch of the European Council 2010’ mean? (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 3.1, IV bullet); (aa) what is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines? (ab) can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council’s financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament’s resolution of 25 November 2009 (10) accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the financial year 2007? (ac) Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament’s Committee responsible for the discharge procedure with the following documents: — the full list of budgetary transfers concerning the 2009 Council budget, — a written statement on the Council’s mission expenses as carried out by the EUSRs, — the Members States’ declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 3.2.2, II bullet), and — the report of the ‘Reflection Group’ in order to understand why such a report costs EUR 1 060 000 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 2;