ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

Notes that Member States' financial pledges for the Africa Trust Fund, the Syria Trust Fund and to UN agencies supporting refugees, reconfirmed at the informal meeting of EU Heads of State or Government on migration of 23 September 2015, at the European Council of 15 October 2015, and at the Valletta Summit of 11-12 November 2015, have not yet been met; deplores that, according to Commission data, Member States were lagging behind by EUR 2,3 billion at the beginning of November 2015;
15.

Emphasises that funding provided for training allowances (in the present case Transferkurzarbeitergeld) must not replace the legal obligation of the Member State or the former employer; calls on both the Commission and the Member State to provide clear and coherent information to specify to what extent Transferkurzarbeitergeld constitutes a legal obligation once the Transfergesellschaft has been set up; requests coherence in both funding practice and information to the Parliament; expects, therefore, the Commission to provide a thorough and coherent analysis and details of the elements that go beyond the legal obligations of the Member States; reiterates its position that EGF funding should be used for ‘Transferkurzarbeitergeld’ in order to enable the transfer company to go beyond what it could normally do for the workers, by providing more personalised and in-depth measures than would be possible without EGF support; emphasises that Parliament will continue to monitor that the EGF is not used to replace the obligations of a Member State or a company;
24.

Notes the conclusion of the Court, in its special report 2014/05, that, overall, the Authority’s resources during its start-up phase were insufficient to allow it to fulfil its mandate; acknowledges that the setting-up phase of ESFS has still not been completed and therefore notes that the tasks already entrusted to the Authority, as well as additional tasks envisaged in ongoing legislative work, require an adequate level of staff, in terms of both numbers and qualifications, and funding to allow for satisfactory supervision; underlines that, in order to uphold the quality of the supervisory work, it is very often the case that an expansion of tasks has to be matched by an expansion of resources; emphasises, however, that any potential increase in the Authority’s means must be explained thoroughly and accompanied by rationalisation measures wherever possible;
9.

Notes that in order to attain both working with the top academics in the industry and having the most effective conflicts of interest policy possible, the Authority uses a system to assess the experts’ interests, which takes into account the role of the experts and the mandate of the scientific working group or panel of which the expert would be a member against a number of different criteria; notes, furthermore, that in 2016 the Authority will undertake an examination of the systems it has in place to detect conflicts of interest as part of the regular cycle of review of its independence policy; asks the Authority to inform the discharge authority about the outcomes of the review and the necessary adjustments to the procedures for selecting experts and checking their credentials;
15.

Reiterates its request made in 2015 to have an exhaustive table of all the human resources at the Supervisor's disposal, with a break-down according to grade, sex and nationality; notes that that table should be automatically included in the Supervisor’s AARs; calls, therefore, on the Supervisor to provide Parliament with an exhaustive table of all human resources as detailed in this paragraph in its AAR for 2015;
4.

Notes that the manufacture of commercial vehicles is no longer dominated by European and North American manufacturers, due to newly emerging Asian truck manufacturers; points out that the heavy truck production in the Union decreased in 2014, as well as exports of heavy commercial vehicles, buses and coaches (a decrease of EUR 6,3 billion, or - 11 %) while overall imports of commercial vehicles into the Union increased (+10 %); notes that the truck industry has found it difficult to embrace major transformation and the need to adjust while becoming ever more global; notes that the Swedish authorities argue that the partial relocation of the Volvo Umeå plant is driven by the need to increase efficiency and decrease cost to meet existing and expected global competition, as part of Volvo’s optimisation program;
6.

Notes that the cost of the relocation from Bramshill, UK to Budapest, Hungary was estimated at approximately EUR 1 006 515, to be spent during 2014 and 2015; notes moreover that in accordance with the agreement between the Commission and the UK, the amount of EUR 570 283 was financed with 50 % from the UK authorities and with 50 % from the Commission; acknowledges the fact that the UK contribution to the relocation funds was inscribed in the College's budget as assigned revenue, which was fully used; welcomes the fact that the remaining relocation funds corresponding to 35 % of the final relocation budget were financed with the College's budget by savings deriving from the lower correction coefficient applied to staff entitlements in Hungary;
23.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, an audit on the dissemination of the results of Union-funded research was carried out by the Internal Audit Service (IAS); notes, furthermore, that, as a result, the IAS recommended improvements, including planning and reporting on the use and dissemination of members' research results under the grant agreements with members, assessment of the core partners' reporting on the dissemination and exploitation of research results, performance monitoring and reporting, and the Joint Undertaking's central dissemination of research results and quality control of beneficiaries' publications; notes, furthermore, that the IAS has issued two very important recommendations, and that the Joint Undertaking made a dedicated action plan for their implementation;
21.

Calls for more information on the project to renovate the Paul Henri Spaak (PHS) building, specifically any opinions from independent external contractors on the possible options for the PHS, which has had a short lifespan of 25 years; calls for the Secretary-General to present the results of such a study to the Committee on Budgets as soon as possible; underlines that the existing building doesn't fulfil the static requirements of a public building for parliamentary functions which has higher security and needs to withstand external shocks without collapsing; criticises the fact that the PHS building doesn't fulfil even minimum standards of modern static requirements and notes that several actions have already had to be taken to guarantee its stability; urges therefore the Bureau and the administration of the Parliament to work on future solutions for the PHS building that secures life and healthy working conditions of the persons present; notes the level of appropriations proposed by the Secretary-General in 2018 concerning studies, preparatory projects and works, and the provision of assistance to the project management team; expresses concern at the possible confusion regarding the amounts to be spent on studies and removals; urges the Bureau and Secretary-General to inform the Committee on Budgets on all subsequent steps and provide a clear breakdown of costs as soon as possible and no later than July 2017; recalls that, in any case, there is a need to implement state-of-the art energy efficient architecture; calls for an assessment on how the renovation will impact the Visitors and Seminars Unit, the availability of the plenary chamber as well the other rooms and offices;
5.

Deplores again that amounts recovered from the under-implementation of Union programmes and from fines under the Union’s competition policy are destined to reduce Member States’ GNI contributions instead of being used for the funding of Union priorities; highlights that Draft amending budget No 6/2017 generates a reflow of GNI contributions of EUR 9 829,6 million to Member States on top of the reflow of EUR 6 405 million already approved in Amending budget 2/2017; draws attention to the fact that the disagreement between the two arms of the budgetary authority as regards spending of the 2018 Union budget, after Parliament’s reading and at the beginning of the conciliation period, amounted to merely EUR 3 619,8 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 2 182,4 million in payment appropriations;
58.

Stresses that the trend by the Commission to resort to satellite budgetary mechanisms such as trust funds and other similar instruments has not always proven to be a success; is concerned that the establishment of financial instruments outside the Union budget could threaten its unity and circumvent the budgetary procedure and at the same time undermine the transparent management of the budget and hamper the right of the Parliament to exercise effective scrutiny of expenditures; considers, therefore, that external instruments which emerged in recent years must be incorporated into the Union budget, with Parliament having full scrutiny over the implementation of these instruments; notes that by end of September 2017 a total of EUR 795,4 million has been committed for EU Trust Funds in the 2017 Budget; asks the Commission to present to the European Parliament and the Council the amount it intends to commit in 2018 to the Trust Funds; reiterates its concern that Member State contributions to these Trust Funds tend to lag behind their pledges; takes note of the ECA Special Report 11/2017 on the Bekou EU Trust Fund for the Central African Republic; is concerned about the deficiencies identified by the ECA, such as the lack of assessment for overall needs and the dysfunctional coordination mechanisms with other donors; expresses its intention to assess the added value of EU Trust Funds as an instrument of Union external policy;
‘1.

Recalls that the Agency is a consolidated entity, in accordance with Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, and it is the driving force among regulatory authorities in implementing the Union's chemicals legislation for the benefit of human health and the environment as well as for innovation and competitiveness; notes that the Agency helps companies to comply with the legislation, advances the safe use of chemicals and provides information on chemicals and addresses chemicals of concern;’.
3.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, the level of committed appropriations carried over to 2017 was high for Title II (administrative expenditure) at EUR 417 279, i.e. 30 % (compared to EUR 364 740, i.e. 26 %, in 2015); notes that those carry-overs mainly concern IT services which had not been fully delivered or invoiced by the end of the year; notes, moreover, that the committed appropriations carried over under Title III amounted to EUR 3 370 616, i.e. 43 % (compared to EUR 3 383 052, i.e. 41 %, in 2015); notes that those carry-overs mainly concern research projects and studies with a duration of more than one year; notes that, according to the Court, the Agency may consider introducing differentiated budget appropriations to better reflect the multi-annual nature of operations and unavoidable delays between the signature of contracts, deliveries and payments; notes from the Agency’s reply that it will study this possibility in order to see if the budget management can be improved;
1.

Reminds the Agency that it must respect the provisions laid down in Articles 109 and 110 of Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 and that it must fulfil its obligations in the discharge procedure, in particular by replying to the questionnaire sent by the Members of the European Parliament and by answering the questions raised during the 2015 discharge procedure, the so-called follow-up exercise; considers that in 2016 the Agency did not fulfil its obligations by sending its answers too late and thus breached the rules and its obligations; is of the opinion that that this could be considered to be a procedural ground for postponing the discharge; is of the opinion that such a delay should not be repeated;
5.

Notes from the Court’s report that under the Agency’s extended mandate, high importance is attached to return operations and EUR 63 000 000 had been assigned to that in its 2016 budget; notes however that EUR 23 000 000, i.e. 37,5 % was repaid to the Union budget since fewer return operations were carried out than envisaged; observes that the significant delay of the procurement procedure for a EUR 50 000 000 framework contract to charter aircraft and related services for the Agency return operations contributed to this situation and continues to affect the number of return operations arranged by the Agency; regrets that, while the launch of this procurement procedure was planned for March 2016, it had not been started by the year end; notes from the Agency’s reply that it has drastically increased the number of joint return flights (232 in 2016 compared to 66 in 2015); notes however that the EUR 23 000 000 could not be used mainly because the framework contract for chartering aircrafts and related services for return operations faced delays generated by the deprioritisation of the project in favour of the efforts taken for ensuring the logistical support (ferries and buses) for the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement; notes that a tender procedure for establishing a four-year framework contract has in the meantime been published, however with a lower estimated budget (EUR 20 000 000);
7.

Notes with concern that out of the EUR 1 638 000 000 of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to the IMI Joint Undertaking, by the end of 2016 the IMI 2 Joint Undertaking had made commitments of EUR 515 000 000 (31 %) and payments of EUR 111 000 000 (7 % of the allocated funds) for the implementation of its first wave of projects; acknowledges the fact that the low level of payments is mainly due to the time required by project consortia to conclude Horizon 2020 grant agreements with the industry partners which delays IMI Joint Undertaking planned pre-financing for the given year; notes moreover that projects in Ebola and antimicrobial resistance programmes have claimed less funds than foreseen in the initial project budgets, which was mainly due to the decline of the epidemic and which were mentioned in previous reports by the Court and by the IMI 2 Joint Undertaking;
3.

Notes, once again, the relatively high level of competition fines in 2017, totalling EUR 3 273 million; considers that, in addition to any surplus resulting from under-implementation, it should be possible for any revenue resulting from fines or linked to late payments to be reused in the Union budget without a corresponding decrease in GNI contributions; recalls its proposal for a special reserve to be established in the Union budget, which will be progressively filled up by all types of unforeseen other revenue and duly carried over in order to provide additional spending possibilities when the need arises;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania and Poland

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/1505.)
15.

Notes that the Foundation revised its internal control framework in 2017 and that the Governing Board adopted the Internal Control Principles; acknowledges the fact that the assessment was based on the 16 internal control standards (ICS) in place and as a result, 10 out of 16 ICS were assessed as needing solely ‘slight improvements’, whereas none of the ICS were neither perceived as needing ‘significant improvements’ nor as having ‘no system in place’; calls on the Foundation to report to the discharge authority on the measures taken in order to improve the situation;
9.

Regrets that out of the minimum EUR 182 500 000 of cash contributions to be made by the industry members to the Joint Undertaking's operational cost, only EUR 800 000 were paid by the end of 2017, having suspended the Commission EUR 50 000 000 of its cash contributions as a consequence; observes that there is a high risk that the minimum will not be achieved by the end of the Joint Undertaking's programme; notes that the Commission proceeded to a reduction in the Union contribution to the Joint Undertaking by EUR 140 000 000, that should still allow for a consistent calls for proposals in 2020 in order to achieve the Joint Undertaking's strategic objectives in 2024; welcomes that in January 2018, amendments to Regulation (EU) No 560/2014 were adopted which allow the private sector to contribute financially at a project level on top of programme level; emphasizes that a positive trend has been observed in the sphere of in-kind contributions to operational activities that are expected to increase by 61 % (EUR 72 500 000 instead of estimated EUR 45 000 000) in 2018 calls for proposals;
21.

Notes with concern that, according to the Court's report, the Institute issued and finalised a tender process to obtain a supplier for travel services without guaranteeing the best value-for-money; notes from the Institute's reply that it has internal controls in place to check and control the prices of services provided by the selected supplier; notes furthermore that the Institute is intending not to renew this contract but to participate in a joint procurement procedure organised by the Commission; calls on the Institute to report to the discharge authority on the progress made in that regard;
59.

In line with the estimates adopted by the Parliament: a) asks the Bureau to work on a technical solution to allow Members to exercise their right to vote while benefitting from their maternity, paternity or long term sickness leave; b) reiterates its calls for a transparent decision-making process in the field of buildings policy; disagrees therefore, with the on-going practice of the year-end ‘mopping-up transfer’ to contribute to current building projects, which takes place systematically on the same chapters, titles and, often, exactly on the same budgetary lines; considers that the building policy should be financed in a transparent manner from budgetary lines dedicated to it; c) recalls its request to the Bureau to take action for the full alignment of the allowances rates incurred in respect of duty travel between Parliament’s three places of work between officials, others servants and Accredited Parliamentary Assistants as from 1 January 2020; d) reiterates its call on the Conference of Presidents and the Bureau to revise the implementing provisions governing the work of delegations and missions outside the European Union; underlines the fact that such a revision should consider the possibility for APAs, subject to certain conditions, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions; e) asks the Secretary General to swiftly present the implementation rules to ensure the statutory rights of APAs in order to avoid discretional interpretation and the current inequalities that prevent from the full exercise of their work as stated under the Members’ and Assistants’ Statutes; f) asks for the full implementation of the measures recommended in Parliament’s resolution of 26 October 2017 on combating sexual harassment and abuse in the European Union (8), namely the implementation of the anti-harassment training for all staff and Members, the external audit of the two existing anti-harassment committees as well as the re-structuring of the two existing committees into one independent committee, with doctors and lawyers as standing members; requests further support to cover the cost of additional staff that are competent to manage harassment cases within Parliament, bringing together in a dedicated service staff with expert medical, psychological, legal, and human resources management background and to cover the judicial and medical expenses of victims of harassment in accordance with Article 24 of the Staff Regulations; g) reiterates its request to the Secretary General for detailed estimations and coast breakdown of the preparatory technical works in the SPAAK building in view of renovation, projected at EUR 12,4 million; h) reiterates its call on a greater use of videoconferences and other technologies in order to protect the environment and to save resources, in particular to reduce staff duty travel between the three places of works;
25.

Notes that the Court issued an emphasis of matter paragraph in relation to the two London-based agencies, concerning the United Kingdom's decision to withdraw from the European Union; notes that the seat of the Agency will move to Amsterdam at the beginning of 2019 and that the Agency's accounts include provisions for related costs amounting to EUR 18 600 000; regrets that the lease agreement for the London based premises sets a rental period until 2039 with no exit clause; deeply regrets that the notes to the accounts disclose an amount of EUR 489 000 000 remaining rent until 2039, of which a maximum amount of EUR 465 000 000 corresponding to the lease period after the Agency's planned move to Amsterdam is disclosed as a contingent liability; urges the Agency and the European Commission to do their utmost to minimise the financial, administrative and operational impact of the unfavourable lease agreement and to report to the discharge authority on the developments in this regard;
Notes that, according to the Court’s report, the Agency signed a framework contact on the exploitation of the Galileo satellite system for 2017 to 2027 on 15 December 2016, amounting to EUR 1 500 000 000; notes moreover that the contract was awarded following a public procurement procedure; points out that one of the tenderers involved has launched legal proceedings, challenging the outcome of the procedure; notes that the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice) will rule on the legality and regularity of the procurement procedure for the framework contract and all related specific contracts and future payments; points out that the written procedure was closed in the first quarter of 2019, that the oral hearing was expected to take place during the second or third quarter of 2019, and that the judgement of the Court of Justice was expected to be delivered in the last quarter of 2019, but that, on 3 December 2019 the Court of Justice discontinued the proceedings (Case T-99/17) ( 3 ) ; notes, from the Agency’s legal analysis on the consequences of a potential annulment of the award decision, that the Agency would likely not be required to terminate the contract but would, rather, be required to meet the plaintiff’s legal costs of approximately EUR 300 000 as well as possible damages, which are mentioned in the Agency’s annual accounts; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on the developments in this regard;
14.

Notes with concern that, according to the Court’s report, the Agency irregularly prolonged the duration of a framework contract for the provision of business travel services by signing amendment number 2 after the contract had expired and that, with that same amendment, the Agency also introduced new price aspects not covered by the competitive procurement procedure, rendering amendment number 2 and related 2018 payments irregular; notes the Agency’s reply that the framework contract extension had been initiated well in advance of its expiry and that the delay for the extension of the contract was due to the application of the principle of sound financial management; calls on the Agency to strengthen accordingly contract management and ex ante controls;