ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
RESOLUTION (EU, EURATOM) 2018/1416 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 18 April 2018

with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Euratom Supply Agency for the financial year 2016

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

— having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Euratom Supply Agency for the financial year 2016,

— having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0102/2018),

A. whereas, according to its financial statements, the final budget of the Euratom Supply Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2016 remained stable at EUR 125 000; whereas EUR 119 000 (95,2 %) of the budget of the Agency derives from the Union budget and EUR 6 000 (4,8 %) from its own revenues (bank interest on the paid-up capital);

B. whereas the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’), in its report on the Agency’s annual accounts for the financial year 2016 (the ‘Court's report’), states that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the Agency’s annual accounts are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular;

Budget and financial management

1. Notes that budget monitoring efforts during the financial year 2016 resulted in a commitment appropriations execution rate of 94,34 %, representing a decrease of 4,58 % compared to 2015; notes that the payment appropriation execution rate was 86,12 %, representing an increase of 23,26 % compared to 2015;

Staff policy

2. Notes that the Agency had 17 staff at the end of 2016, all being Commission officials;

Other comments

3. Notes that the Agency processed 344 transactions in 2016, including contracts, amendments and notifications in order to ensure the security of supply of nuclear materials;

4. Notes that in May 2016 the Agency Advisory Committee gave a positive opinion on a draft proposal for its updated Rules ( 1 ) , in order to bring them up-to-date with current market practices; notes that, before entering into force, the proposed Rules must be approved by the Commission; notes, however, that the approval process was not finalised at the beginning of 2017;

5. Refers, for other observations of a cross-cutting nature accompanying its decision on discharge, to its resolution of 18 April 2018 ( 2 ) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

(1) Rules of the Supply Agency of the European Atomic Energy Community of 5 May 1960 determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials (OJ 32, 11.5.1960, p. 777).

(2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0133 (see page 393 of this Official Journal).
10.

Underlines that Heading 3 has been largely mobilised in recent years to address the migratory and refugee challenge and that such actions should continue and be reinforced as much and for as long as needed; calls on the Commission to actively monitor the adequacy of allocations under Heading 3 and make full use of all available instruments to respond in a timely manner to any unforeseen event that might require additional funding in the area of migration with a special attention to the case of island regions falling under the scope of Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; decides to reinforce the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) to fully cover the needs of the Union in the field of migration, notably to support Members States in improving reception conditions, integration measures and practices for asylum seekers and migrants, and enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States and fair and effective return strategies; notes, once again, that the Heading 3 ceiling is inadequate to provide appropriate funding to the internal dimension of those priorities, as well as to other priority programmes, for example in the fields of health, food safety, security, justice, citizenship and culture; considers that local authorities with the willingness to support the Union Resettlement Programme should be further supported through the direct management strand of the AMIF;
16.

Acknowledges the Authority's existing measures and ongoing efforts to secure prevention and management of conflicts of interest and transparency; welcomes the recent Authority's decision on implementing rules laying down guidelines on whistleblower's' protection and confidentiality of their identity; welcomes the Authority's updated policy on independence, which was adopted in 2017 after stakeholder and public consultation and which aims to build on from the policy it replaces in order to ensure that the Authority may reach a correct balance between attracting the relevant expertise from the scientific community but at the same time guarding its activities against any undue influence; welcomes also the new definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest which was adopted in the new Authority's policy on independence; welcomes further the publication on the Authority's website of the declarations of interest by the members of the Management Board; regrets that the publication of their CVs is still missing; notes with appreciation that the Authority implemented rules on competing interest management as of July 2018 replacing the rules on the declarations of interest of 2014;
22.

Notes that 28 % of the Authority's budget came from fees charged to the entities it supervises; notes with satisfaction that measures have been implemented in order to mitigate any conflicts of interests, and that those structures and processes have been audited; calls on the Authority to continue reporting to the discharge authority on its measures to ensure that no conflict of interest occurs; furthermore, notes that the Authority believes that if the Commission collected the fees, inefficiencies would arise as the Authority already has the appropriate fee-setting and collection structures and processes in place, and the Authority considers that the procedure requires specific expertise due to its dynamic and technical nature;
12.

Regrets that, according to the Court's report, as from the end of 2017, the human resources situation at the Office has deteriorated exponentially: for the Office's management, 4 out of 10 head of unit posts and 18 out of 27 head of sector posts were vacant; urges the Office to publish all vacant positions; notes, in addition, that in the administrative department, 3 out of 4 head of unit posts and 5 out of 10 head of sector posts were vacant; expresses its grave concern that this creates considerable managerial challenges for the Office and poses a significant risk to the continuation of the Office's operations at the current scale; regrets that, despite repeated attempts, the Office did not succeed in recruiting or retaining enough staff in 2017; acknowledges from the Office's reply that it is investing in staff satisfaction and taking measures in order to diminish staff turnover, such as implementing flexible ways of working, also to compensate the low correction coefficient of Malta; calls on the Office to keep the discharge authority up to date on the corrective measures taken to mitigate those risks; urges the Office to give priority to filling the vacant mid management posts with highly qualified permanent staff, in order to train the other new staff members;
10.

Welcomes that the Agency continued organising webinars to provide law enforcement officers with information and best practice on identifying and investigating hate crimes and different forms of gender-based violence, and that it offered training to raise awareness of the challenges experienced by Roma communities and LGBTI persons (such as over- and under-policing and the lack of trust towards members of the police force), and how these can be addressed at the level of law enforcement; calls for the continuation of the provision of trainings in the field of fundamental rights and the related sensitisation of the police force.
Emphasises that the Agency is partly financed from the fees it receives from companies that request the registration of chemicals as required under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ) ; notes that the fees applicable depend on the size of the companies and the volume of chemicals registered; notes that the Agency has identified that some 52 % of the companies had incorrectly declared their size, resulting in lower fees; stresses that this finding demonstrates the limitations of a system that relies excessively on self-declarations made by applicants; notes that the Agency has, over the years, invoiced fee corrections and administrative charges amounting to EUR 17,9 million and that the Agency has made considerable progress in recovering undue fee reductions and collecting overdue administrative charges; notes, however, that there is still a considerable verification workload ahead and that the remaining amount of necessary fee corrections was unknown at the end of 2018; urges the Agency to put in place similarly thorough ex-ante verifications to minimise the risk of fraudulent self-declarations; furthermore, urges the national enforcement authorities to enhance the verification systems used to check and publish the volumes of chemicals declared by the companies; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on its efforts, and on the results achieved, to continue to reduce the considerable verification backlog and to implement the fee corrections and the recovery of unpaid fees; calls on the Commission to propose measures to resolve this situation in order to avoid fraud in declarations of the size of applicants and to allow the Agency to plan its budget on a more stable basis;
6.

Calls on the Commission to conduct a Feasibility Study in order to assess the possibility of setting up shared synergies with the Cedefop which has its headquarters in Thessaloniki; calls on the Commission to evaluate both scenarios, namely the transfer of the Agency to the Cedefop headquarters in Thessaloniki, and the transfer of the Agency’s headquarters to its Heraklion headquarters; notes that the transfer of the Agency to the Cedefop headquarters would entail the sharing of corporate and support services and the management of the common premises, as well as shared ICT, telecommunications and internet-based infrastructures, saving very significant amounts of money which would be used for the further funding of both agencies;
Official Journal of the European Union

P9_TA(2020)0048

Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for 2020: immediate measures in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak

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 (COM(2020)0171 — C9-0096/2020 –2020/2056(BUD))

(2021/C 316/10)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0171 — C9-0096/2020),

— 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 2/2020, which the Commission adopted on 2 April 2020 (COM(2020)0170),

— 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.
6.

Notes that out of the EUR 1 657 500 000 of contributions to be made at least by private (industry) members to the activities of the Joint Undertaking over the period envisaged for the programme in the regulation, at the end of 2019, the Joint Undertaking estimated (reported but not validated) that the members had made in-kind contributions of EUR 705 410 000, compared to the Union’s cash contribution at the end of 2019 of EUR 681 483 000 (up to EUR 1 184 874 000 as per Regulation (EU) No 561/2014) and industry’s in-kind validated contribution of EUR 102 559 000; notes furthermore that industry members’ cash contributions amounted to EUR 14 922 000; notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking can calculate the actual amount of the industry members’ in-kind contributions only after it has validated the contributions of the Participating States at the end of the programme and that that explains the high amount of reported but not yet validated industry in-kind contributions; calls on the Participating States to honour their obligations under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 561/2014 with regard to their contributions and reporting of it;
1.

Regrets that budget-monitoring efforts during the financial year 2019 resulted in a budget implementation rate of 44,51 %, representing a decrease of 30,67 % compared to 2018; observes that the low implementation rate was caused by a lack of alignment between the budgetary planning for new tasks as presented in the respective legislative financial statements prepared by the Commission and the actual date of the entry into force of the relevant legal acts or the completion of subsequent acts, as well as the late adoption and entry into force of certain legal acts; notes that because of the low budget implementation rate, the Agency returned EUR 66 million to the Commission in payment appropriations, including EUR 23 million not requested when the budget was established, and carried forward EUR 159 million in commitment appropriations which was authorised by the management board; notes that this calls into question the planning assumptions in the legislative financial statements prepared by the Commission; notes that the incorporation of a significant amount of resources in the budget for the implementation of legislation not yet adopted presents a serious risk to the efficient use of appropriations, in particular to those appropriations not requested by the Agency itself; notes that the budget implementation problem was also reported by the Court for the financial year 2018; notes that according to the Agency’s reply, risks associated with the incorporation of resources in the Agency’s budget for legislation not yet adopted are systematically reported to the management board; calls on the Agency, together with the Commission, to improve the alignment of budgetary planning with the timing of legal acts; calls on the Commission to involve the Agency in the preparation of the respective legislative financial statements at the earliest possible stage; notes, furthermore, that the payment appropriations execution rate was 92,28 %, representing a decrease of 1,80 % compared to 2018;
26.

Notes that the Agency reported that its internal control framework is effective and that the annual assessment of its implementation did not highlight deficiencies, except for one minor deficiency concerning missing of recordings in its register of exceptions; notes with concern that the Court found that the register of exceptions was not properly filled in; recommends that the Agency registers all exceptions and non-compliant events in the register, and that they are duly taken into account in the annual assessment of the internal control framework;
12.

Notes that the IMI2 Joint Undertaking has 10 key performance indicators (KPIs) that were tracked and reported on for the first time in its 2018 annual activity report, which also involved collecting data from the IMI Joint Undertaking, where relevant; notes that an analysis of the KPIs reveals that IMI2 Joint Undertaking projects are now, namely in the middle of the IMI2 Joint Undertaking’s programme cycle, getting on track compared to the established targets and able to generate innovations and detectable impacts, given the complex and long-term nature of the projects; notes that, with regard to the longer-term outputs and impacts of its programmes, the IMI2 Joint Undertaking in 2019 carried out a significant assessment of the socio-economic impact of the 44 IMI Joint Undertaking projects that had been completed; calls on the IMI2 Joint Undertaking to also assess the environmental impact of its projects; furthermore, notes that the IMI2 Joint Undertaking collects data to report, based on the relevant standard KPI’s of Horizon 2020;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Croatia in relation to the series of earthquakes starting from 28 December 2020

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2022/49.)
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Belgium — EGF/2020/005 BE/Swissport

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2021/1020.)
13.

Regrets the lack of attention paid to the need for an ethical framework, to transparency and to the prevention, identification and avoidance of conflicts of interest; reiterates its deep concern over the conflicts of interests of a number of Member State representatives involved in policy and budget decision-making processes; highlights in this regard the conclusions of the Commission audit on Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and Agrofert which confirm the existence of a conflict of interest; reiterates that any actual or perceived conflict of interest jeopardises the reputation of the Council and the Union as a whole; repeats Parliament’s strong call on the Council to ensure that Member State representatives who benefit directly from Union subsidies through the businesses they own (directly or indirectly) do not participate in related policy or budgetary discussions and votes; requests the Council to provide Parliament with information on the necessary measures put in place to avoid any conflict of interest; deplores that the Council categorically rejects Parliaments' proposals to increase digitalisation in the area of audit and control and refuses to cooperate on increasing the interoperability of existing Union and national databases and reporting and monitoring systems; is very concerned about the official and unofficial European Council conclusions that, despite existing conflicts of interest, impact upon the common agricultural policy and with the cohesion negotiations on a capping of funding per natural and legal person;
31.

Welcomes the outcome of the first phase of the mediation process between the Committee and Mr McCoy, former financial controller and internal auditor, with the signing in December 2019 of a political agreement on principles governing the resolution of Mr McCoy’s bona fide whistleblower case; recalls that, based on the 2017 discharge resolution, the appointment of a Member of Parliament as mediator took place and that all parties entered into a mediation process to bring the dispute between the Committee and Mr. McCoy to an end with the objective of reaching an amicable settlement; acknowledges that the Committee pursued the scheduled mediation meetings with Mr McCoy; is aware that the second stage of the mediation concluded on 9 July 2021 with the contribution of Parliament’s mediator, Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, Mr. McCoy and the President and the Secretary-General of the Committee and the signing of a final financial settlement; is aware, lastly, that the Committee, after approval of the transfer by the budgetary authorities, successfully executed the agreed payment to Mr McCoy in November 2021; acknowledges the work done by successive rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for the Committee’s discharge over the past twenty years who, along with the mediation process and the assistance of Parliament's Legal Service, contributed to the resolution of the long-stalled issue; truly regrets the considerable harm caused to Mr McCoy and states that this case should not have remained unresolved for more than eighteen years; expresses its sincere satisfaction with the conclusion of this case and supports the Committee’s actions in order to ensure that such a situation cannot arise again;
12.

Notes that the gender balance among middle and senior management in 2020 was six women out of ten (compared to 2019, when it was five out of nine); notes that the gender balance among the members of the management board is 40 % men and 60 % women and among staff overall 32,3 % men and 67,7 % women; asks the Foundation to ensure better gender balance at the management and staff levels in the future; asks the Commission and the Member States to take into account the importance of ensuring gender balance when nominating their members to the Foundation’s management board; notes that the Foundation receives a higher number of applications from its host country despite the wide publication of its vacancy notices, which explains the higher number of Italian nationals recruited (in 2020, 41 % of staff had the Italian nationality); notes that the Foundation is using a merit-based selection procedure, with in presence of equal merits, the choice in favour of candidates with under-represented nationalities; calls on the Foundation to continue to enhance the geographical balance of its staff in order to establish a proper representation of nationals from all Member States, with a particular focus at management level;
36.

Regrets that since the virtual meetings between the two victims of serious misconduct and the president of the Committee in March 2021, the Committee has not yet reached settlement agreements with the victims, and regrets that the actions taken by the management of the Committee have been neither effective nor decisive; rejects the view of the Committee’s secretary-general that the fact that those two victims are no longer working at the Committee is a valid justification for not having reached settlement agreements; reminds the Committee of the several communications that were sent by the victim that left the Committee in 2017; emphasises that that victim did not see any initial proposal from the administration until mid-2021, whereas the complaints to the secretary-general of the Committee date back to early 2019, and therefore strongly condemns the statement by the secretary-general indicating that the delay of the settlement was the fault of the victim; notes that the victim of serious misconduct who is a former Committee member made several requests to the president of the Committee during the virtual meeting in March 2021, including a request for a public apology from the Committee to the victims, full settlement of compensation for the victims and an external investigation into harassment within the Committee; deeply regrets that the victims who are in a vulnerable situation have again been forced to publicly deny the statements made by the Committee’s secretary-general to Parliament; takes note that in April 2022 the Committee declared to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control that the measures agreed during the said meeting have been implemented or are being implemented; notes the public statement of the President of the Committee of 13 April 2022 reiterating her official apology on behalf of the Committee to all the victims of the case;