ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

Notes that, according to the current discharge procedure, annual activity reports are submitted to the Court in June, the Court then submits its reports to the Parliament in October, and the discharges are voted by Parliament in plenary by May; notes that, unless the discharge is postponed, at least 17 months pass between the closing of annual accounts and the closing of the discharge procedure; points out that auditing in the private sector follows a much shorter timeline; stresses that the discharge procedure needs to be streamlined and sped up; requests that the Court follows best practice in the private sector; proposes in this regard to set a deadline for the submission of annual activity reports of 31 March of the year following the accounting year and a deadline for the submission of the Court's reports of 1 July; proposes also to review the timetable for the discharge procedure as set down in Article 5 of Annex IV to Parliament's Rules of Procedure so that the vote on the discharges would take place in Parliament’s part-session of November, thereby closing the discharge procedure within the year following the accounting year in question;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Portugal — EGF/2018/002 PT/Norte — Centro — Lisboa wearing apparel

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/1720.)
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from the Netherlands – EGF/2018/001 NL/Financial service activities

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/1675.)
14.

Notes from the Court's report that by the end of 2017 the Agency was not yet using all of the tools launched by the Commission aimed at introducing a single solution for the electronic exchange of information with third parties participating in public procurement procedures (e-procurement); notes from the Agency's reply that the Agency has introduced e-invoicing and e-tendering for certain procedures and is in the process of extending them to all its procedures; calls on the Agency to introduce all of the necessary tools to manage procurement procedures and report to the discharge authority on the progress made in that field;
24.

Notes that due to the United Kingdom`s decision to withdraw from the Union, the seat of the Authority will be moved to Paris, France at the beginning of 2019; notes that the Authority's accounts include provisions for related costs amounting to EUR 6,7 million and disclose EUR 11,2 million remaining future contractual payments as scheduled for the office in London; notes that the building costs include inter alia the continued payment of rent and building charges for the London offices until the break of the lease at the end of 2020, whereas the Authority intends to offset those costs by capitalisation of the rent-free period received from the landlord and by using the French government contribution to ensure that the Authority pays rent and charges on only one office in 2019 and 2020;
23.

Notes that by the end of the transitional period (16 June 2019), the Agency will transform from a mere policy preparation and dissemination role into an authority working directly for the industry as regards authorisations for safety certifications and rolling stock; encourages the Agency management to continue its focus on the preparation of the new tasks under the Fourth Railway Package technical pillar, recommending to put high priority on human resource management; notes the progress regarding preparatory decisions for the adoption of a framework for auditing Notified Bodies and the One-Stop-Shop and the policy on monitoring the performance and decision making of National Safety Authorities; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on the steps taken for this move to be successful and deliver benefits in terms of reduced costs;
8.

Observes that the Foundation was the subject of the external ‘cross-agencies’ evaluation, together with the Cedefop, the EU-OSHA and the ETF, covering the period 2012 to 2016, which focused on the assessment of the Agencies' work regarding relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and Union added-value, as well as the future of the four Agencies; calls on the Foundation to report to the discharge authority on the results of the final report, particularly as regards to the evaluation on the Union added value provided by the Foundation, and the views on the future of the Foundation;
15.

Expresses its concerns about the information reported by the European media regarding the corporate sponsorship of Member States hosting the Union Presidency and echoes the concerns expressed by Union citizens and Members of Parliament; acknowledges that the Member States are expected to finance their own Presidencies and regrets that resorting to corporate sponsorship to cover some of their expenses in this regards has become common practice in recent years; is highly concerned about the possible reputational damage and the risk of loss of trust that this practice may incur on the Union, its institutions and especially to the Council in the eyes of the citizens of the Union; suggests that the Council adopt guidelines in order to promote the financial transparency and independency of the Presidencies; strongly recommends the Council to envisage budgetisation of the Presidencies; will closely monitor the conclusions of the enquiry of the European Ombudsman related to this matter; requests the Council to forward this concern to the Member States, in particular to the current trio Presidency;
7.

Recalls the fact that the number of new cases as well as the number of ongoing cases (i.e. cases requiring complex investigations that can last several years) has grown over recent years and that the workload is expected to increase further due to the new mandate which entered into force at the end of 2019, also bearing in mind the additional resources required to allow Eurojust to support the work of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; underlines that, in addition to arrests, successful prosecutions in the area of serious cross-border crime are essential for the security of citizens in the Union; further recalls that the number of coordination centres held in 2018 was 17, the same amount as in 2017, demonstrating the popularity and utility of this operational tool; stresses the essential role that Eurojust plays in the Union security chain and that its budget should match its tasks and priorities in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate; is therefore extremely concerned by the severe budgetary cuts proposed by the Commission for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework which would undermine the work of Eurojust and therefore present security risks within Member States; calls on Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to invite the administrative director of Eurojust to present the anticipated long-term funding needs of Eurojust, addressing the extent to which anticipated future tasks could be covered through gains in efficiency, and also addressing the operational gaps which would result from insufficient funding and their anticipated impact on the fight against cross-border crime;
18.

Notes with concern that, although the Centre is not fee-financed, it depends on revenue received from its clients, who are represented on the Centre’s management board, and that there is therefore a high risk of conflict of interest regarding the pricing of the Centre’s products, which could be remedied if the Commission collected fees on behalf of the Centre’s clients, leading to the Centre being fully funded from the Union budget; acknowledges the Centre’s comment that the possibility of being funded from the Union budget would require an agreement between the Commission and the budgetary authority; calls on the Centre to report to the discharge authority on measures taken in order to mitigate such a risk;
Official Journal of the European Union

P9_TA(2020)0047

Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for 2020: immediate measures in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak; reinforcement of the European Public Prosecutor's Office

European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2020 on the decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument to finance immediate budgetary measures in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak and a reinforcement of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (COM(2020)0140 — C9-0092/2020 –2020/2053(BUD))

(2021/C 316/09)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0140 — C9-0092/2020),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,

— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (2), and in particular point 12 thereof,

— having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2020, as definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (3),

— having regard to Draft amending budget No 1/2020, which the Commission adopted on 27 March 2020 (COM(2020)0145),

— having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2. Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union ;

3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.

(2) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 57, 27.2.2020.
15.

Notes that the Commission’s internal audit service (IAS) conducted a full risk assessment, including with regard to IT, in 2016 resulting in a new strategic audit plan for the Agency for the period 2017 to 2019 and formulated the audit topics for the following planning period; notes that in 2018 the IAS performed an audit on IT security in the Agency and information security in the ‘REMIT’ domain and that the Agency prepared an action plan, scheduled for implementation in 2019, to address the recommendations contained in the final audit report; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on developments in that regard;
28.

Calls on the Authority to implement the recommendations of the European Ombudsman in case 2168/2019/KR, in particular, where necessary, by invoking the option of forbidding its senior staff from taking up certain positions after the end of their term in office, setting out criteria for the possibility for staff to move to the private sector, informing applicants for senior posts of the Authority of the criteria when they apply, and putting in place internal procedures to ensure that when a member of its staff moves to another job, his or her access to the confidential information is withdrawn with immediate effect; further calls on the Authority to consider extending the 12-month mandatory cooling-off period for senior members of staff that contemplate a move that may give rise to post-public employment conflicts of interest;
8.

Highlights that during 2019, assistance from the Agency was required in 7 804 cross-border criminal investigations, an increase of 17 % compared to 2018, with 3 892 of those investigations being new cases opened in 2019, an increase of 9 % compared to 2018; recalls that the Agency’s casework has increased significantly over the years, not only in numbers, but also in complexity, and that this increase is expected to continue in the coming years; stresses the essential role that the Agency plays in the Union security chain and that its budget should match its tasks and priorities in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate; notes that the first Commission proposal of the 2020 budget indicated a significant shortfall compared to the Agency’s projected needs; supports the Agency’s advocacy to be provided with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate in the security chain;
44.

Notes with regret that some of the agencies are facing the challenge of insufficient staff, especially when new tasks are allocated without matching personnel for their implementation, and that the discharge authority is particularly concerned about the difficulties that some agencies experience in hiring qualified staff at specific grades, a fact which hinders the overall performance of the agencies and necessitates the employment of external actors; notes in this regard recommendations 1 and 2 of the Court in its report ‘Future of EU Agencies’ as regards the increased need for flexibility, and encourages the Network and the Commission to work together on the implementation of these recommendations; notes further in this regard that the Court’s Special Report on the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) (Special Report 23/2020) highlights the fact that the current selection process necessitates a search for more flexible selection procedures by Union institutions to fulfil their immediate recruitment needs; emphasises the Union institutions’ need for more specialised personnel, which in the case of agencies is essential given their specific mandates; calls on the Commission, and in particular on EPSO, to better assist the agencies in this regard and to adapt its recruitment policies in a way that would attract the best qualified and more specialised staff; asks the Commission and EPSO to show a degree of flexibility in adapting the job offers to the particular conditions, to ensure efficient recruitment; highlights the importance of improving Union’s selection procedures and job attractiveness; stresses that understaffing of agencies poses a serious risk of negative impact on performance, as well as on staff wellbeing and turnover;
26.

Notes that in 2019, the Joint Undertaking continued to use existing Commission framework contracts and service level agreements as well as launched specific tender procedures, and furthermore that for interim staff and common IT services it also signed specific contracts under the framework contracts jointly managed with other joint undertakings in the white atrium; furthermore, notes that at the beginning of 2018, the programme office implemented a streamlined version of the internal procedure for tendering and signing procurement contracts and that it implemented further improvements and simplifications in 2019; notes that an ex ante control system is in place to ensure the correctness of all payments and prevent double funding, in line with the Horizon 2020 ex-ante control and anti-fraud strategies; calls on the Joint Undertaking to take into consideration potential risks arising from outsourcing its IT services to external providers; calls on the Joint Undertaking to provide the discharge authority with further details regarding the recruitment of interim staff and in particular whether that recruitment was a temporary solution needed to deal with an increased workload;
8.

Is concerned about the geographical imbalances in the composition of the EEAS staff as it is a recurrent issue and particularly concerns the positions of Heads of Delegations and in middle and senior management; notes considerable disparities in the representation of countries with comparable population sizes and between western and eastern European countries; stresses that the EEAS, like all European institutions, must ensure that all Member States are proportionally represented while at the same time respecting the competences and merits of the candidates; urges the EEAS to enhance the geographical balance in order to have an appropriate representation of nationals from all Member States, reflecting their diversity, as indicated in Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials; welcomes the efforts made by the EEAS to keep the Human Resources Network of EU Member States informed about the composition of staff, to publish vacancies and to promote national efforts to increase the number of candidates; calls on the EEAS to report on the distribution of nationalities in the selection committee responsible for hiring; asks the EEAS to provide statistics on staff members according to nationality for the year 2019;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers following an application from Spain — EGF/2021/001 ES/País Vasco metal

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2021/2159.)
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from the Netherlands — EGF/2020/004 NL/KLM

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2021/1022.)
2.

Deplores the Court’s observation that forms the basis for a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the payments underlying the accounts; notes that the Court found that a temporary delegation granted by the previous executive director to a staff member expired on 31 December 2019 and that that staff member was granted a new delegation by the new executive director on 12 February 2020; notes that the Court found that in the intervening time, that member of staff authorised, in the pursuance of the Agency’s objectives, budgetary commitments amounting to EUR 529 120 and payments amounting to EUR 914 100 without a valid delegation (3,5 % of the total payment appropriations available in 2020); welcomes the observation of the Court that following its audit, the Agency has taken steps to mitigate the identified risks in the future;
16.

Notes with concern the observations of the Court that certain procurement procedures of the Authority contravened the Financial Regulation, in particular those related to the signing of a short-term banking agreement with a bank; notes that in that case, the Authority significantly underestimated the contract’s value, resulting in the Authority using the wrong type of procurement procedure; further notes that the Authority initiated the procedure for signing a new contract for banking services only one week before the expiry of the previous one, exceptionally launching a negotiated procedure without prior publication with only one potential contractor, without providing justification for doing so; deplores the Court’s observation that the potential contractor’s offer did not meet the Authority’s expectations, resulting in the Authority requesting offers from other tenderers, without setting out any criteria for selecting the best offer, nor carrying out any proper evaluation of the offers it received, but accepting the original offer instead; notes that the signed contract included the charge of a negative interest rate on the Authority’s deposited funds with the amount paid from January to August 2020 being EUR 38 430, instead of the estimated EUR 11 808; notes the legal evaluation of the Court, concluding that under point 14 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation, based on the actual amount of negative interest paid, the tender procedure to apply should have been the one for low-value contracts, with a minimum of three offers that should have been sought from the outset and the Court’s subsequent conclusion that the procurement procedure and the associated payments are deemed irregular;
22.

Recalls the importance of increasing the digitalisation of the Institute in terms of internal operation and management but also in order to speed up the digitalisation of procedures; stresses the need for the Institute to continue to be proactive in this regard in order to avoid a digital gap between the agencies at all costs; draws attention, however, to the need to take all the necessary security measures to avoid any risk to the online security of the information processed; calls on the Institute to speed up the development of its cybersecurity policy and to inform the discharge authority once it has been completed;
80.

Welcomes that following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union on 31 January 2020, the EEAS finally established an EU delegation in London and a UK division within its HQ structure; regrets however the delay in the granting of diplomatic status to Parliament staff working at the Liaison Office in London, and the initial refusal of the EEAS to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion; understands that the Establishment Agreement replaces any temporary provisions and ensures that the delegation in London, its members of staff and property, enjoy privileges and immunities equivalent to those referred to in the Vienna Convention in a similar way as the other 144 delegations and offices; regrets that the EEAS negotiated the draft establishment agreement with the UK authorities without consulting Parliament; stresses that sending regular updates to Parliament rather than properly consulting Parliament does not meet the EEAS’ obligation of ‘appropriate support and cooperation’ as laid down in Article 3(4) of the Decision establishing the EEAS; notes that by the end of 2020, almost 40 posts (including expatriate and local staff) were filled out of the 43 posts available in total; is aware that the delegation is located in the building, property of the Union, used in the past by the Representation of the Commission and the European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO);
5.

Notes that out of the EUR 1 425 000 000 of in-kind and cash contributions to be made by industry members to the operational activities of the IMI2 Joint Undertaking, in-kind contributions of EUR 317 206 000 and cash contributions of EUR 20 717 000 were reported and validated, and that, additionally, EUR 7 064 000 in cash and EUR 34 972 000 of in-kind contributions by associated members were reported and validated; notes that, consequently, at the end of 2020, the total contributions of industry members and associated partners to the Horizon 2020 activities of the IMI2 Joint Undertaking amounted to EUR 379 959 000, compared to the Union’s total cash contribution of EUR 643 180 000; acknowledges that pre-financing rules are set by the Financial Regulation and the model grant agreement and expects that industry contributions will match Union input at programme level by the end of the IMI2 Joint Undertaking; notes that, regarding the 2020 budget available for Horizon 2020 projects, the implementation rates for commitment and payment appropriations were 100 % and 99,7 %, respectively; notes that, during 2020, 92 projects were running under the IMI2 Joint Undertaking, of which 6 had ended by 31 December 2020; notes that the increase of commitments in 2020 of EUR 200 400 000 (Union funding) and EUR 182 300 000 (the industry and Associated Partner commitment), results from the conclusion of 19 new signed grant agreements by the IMI2 Joint Undertaking, including 8 projects for the emergency call for proposals on coronavirus treatments and diagnostics;