ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Acknowledges from the Centre that: — no solution to the problem of selling or leasing the unused office space has been found, even though the Centre actively seeks an adequate solution; acknowledges, furthermore, that the Centre has further rationalised and reduced its maintenance costs by revising security settings and reducing energy consumption, — the third evaluation of the Centre by the Commission was completed in 2012 and that the action plan to follow-up on the recommendations resulting from the evaluation exercise has been prepared by the Centre and endorsed by its Management Board, defining detailed measures to be taken during the 2013-2015 work programme, — a revision of the Centre’s internal processes was made to reduce the volume of carry-overs which resulted in a reduction of 16 % of the appropriations carried forward from 2012 to 2013, compared to the previous year, — a treasury policy related to minimising and spreading financial risk aimed at periodically monitoring the possible risk has been put in place, — a revision of the Centre’s policy on exceptions has been put in place in order to explicitly cover any exception that reflects a deviation from any rule formally adopted and in force at the Centre, — its recruitment processes were adjusted to provide for the definition of the content of written tests and interviews before the selection board examines the applications received;
10.

Acknowledges from Eurojust that in 2012 the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS) carried out a follow up engagement in accordance with the Eurojust’s Strategic Audit Plan; observes that in the course of the risk analysis, the IAS identified certain processes of high inherent risk which could not be considered as auditable within the audit plan, that Eurojust management submitted an action plan aimed at addressing these weaknesses and the actions undertaken by Eurojust were to be followed up by the IAS during the next in-depth risk assessment (2013); notes that there were four ‘very important’ recommendations from the years before which still were in the process of being addressed by Eurojust;
7.

Notes, however, that the level of committed appropriations carried over to 2013 was high for title II (administrative expenditure) at 35 % and title III (operating expenditure) at 46 %; acknowledges that for title II, this was caused, to a large extent, by events beyond the Agency’s control, such as the late invoicing of the 2012 office rental costs by the Spanish authorities; notes, moreover, that in order to meet the increased operational needs it was faced with in the last quarter of 2012, the Agency ordered a high volume of goods and services for which delivery was still pending by the end of the year; acknowledges that for title III, an important reason for the high level of carry-overs was the considerable workload faced by the agency as a result of the large number of IT projects that were either launched or ongoing in 2012 and this workload had an impact on the timeliness of procurement procedures in the case of two IT projects launched in 2012; acknowledges, furthermore, that expenses related to training and missions undertaken by staff and experts in the last quarter of 2012 were only due for reimbursement at the beginning of 2013;
14.

Recalls that the overall level of payment appropriations agreed for the 2014 budget remains below the level considered necessary and proposed by the Commission in its original draft budget; notes that, as provided for in the new MFF Regulation and the new global margin for payments, the Commission should adjust the payment ceiling for the year 2015 upwards by the amount equivalent to the difference between the executed 2014 payments and the MFF payment ceiling for 2014; is deeply concerned that the unprecedented level of outstanding bills at the end of 2013, amounting to EUR 23,4 billion under Heading 1b alone, cannot be covered within the 2014 ceilings; calls for the mobilisation of the appropriate flexibility mechanisms for payments in 2014 and stresses that even this is not expected to be sufficient to avoid a large implementation deficit at the end of 2014; underlines the fact that the recurrent shortages in payment appropriations have been the main cause of the unprecedentedly high level of outstanding commitments (RALs), especially in the last few years;
15.

Acknowledges that according to the lease agreement between the Greek authorities, the Agency and the landlord, rent for the offices in Athens is paid by the Greek authorities; is concerned by the constant late payment of rent, delayed by several months, which presents business continuity and financial risks for the Agency; takes note that the Agency has commenced discussions with the interested parties in this regard; notes furthermore that to date, the landlord has accepted the delays attributed to the procedures of the Greek Government without imposing any penalty on the Agency; calls on the Agency to continue its efforts in order to mitigate the risks brought by this situation and to inform the discharge authority on the progress;
12.

Acknowledges from the Agency that in 2014, it offered detailed explanations and training to the beneficiaries regarding the criteria for eligibility of costs, and in particular, the acceptable methodologies for calculating staff costs, all described in a written manual; notes furthermore that the Agency conducted four on-the-spot verifications with the objective of verifying the calculation of the claimed costs based on relevant documentation and analysing the reliability of the internal control systems put in place; takes note that the verifications included checking the payments made in 2013, which covered 20,45 % of beneficiaries' total staff costs, and notes furthermore that 0,12 % of the controlled costs were considered as ineligible; calls on the Agency however to further improve the level of its ex ante verifications to ensure the eligibility of beneficiaries and to inform the discharge authority on further progress in this regard;
2.

Acknowledges from the Authority that: — it has strengthened its procurement support capacity at corporate level, with clear definition of roles and responsibilities both for procurement officials and for operational staff, as well as with varied procurement training for all relevant staff categories, — it has adopted rules on management of conflicts of interests which have been revised according to the Commission guidelines on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in EU decentralised agencies, — it has renewed its website with the purpose of improving the transparency and accessibility of the information provided, — the CVs of the members of the Management Board and the declaration of interests of the Chair and of the Executive Director have been published. Calls on the Authority to also publish the declarations of interests of the members of the Management Board and of the Supervisors Board,
22.

Takes note that the methodology for evaluating in-kind contributions, which specifies that the validation of the contributions is based on ex ante certifications and ex post audits, was approved by the Governing Board in 2011; notes moreover that the remaining eight certified methodologies for in-kind contributions were completed during 2013 and that the total number of EFPIA companies had been brought to 22; ascertains that the first three ex post audits covering in-kind contributions were completed during the course of 2013, one other ex post audit was initiated and two were in the process of being initiated at the year-end;
11.

Observes with concern that the issue of conflicts of interests is extremely relevant with regards to the members of the panel of experts who are called to test and authorise the products; expresses its deep concern about the two revolving door cases identified by the Agency in 2013 and recommends that the Agency further strengthen its independence policy, especially in publishing the CVs and declarations of interests of managers, members of the Advisory Board and the panel of experts by the end of September 2015; calls upon the Agency to adopt comprehensive policies for the management of situations where conflicts of interests arrive, such as the divestment of a public official's interests, the recusal of the public official from involvement in an affected decision-making process, the restriction of access by the affected public official to particular information and the rearrangement of the public official's duties or the resignation of the public official from their office;
6.

Draws attention to the fact that the decision to transfer most of the unused appropriations from 2014 to 2015 may require a flexible approach from the Commission in order to address possible difficulties resulting from an uneven financial profile, which could lead to unused commitments in the period 2014-2020; calls on the Commission to propose adequate measures, in case such a situation might arise, based on similar past experience that took into account the late approval of programmes;
4.

Considers that the redundancies in ArcelorMittal Liège S.A. are linked to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, as between 2007 and 2013 the production of crude steel in the EU-27 decreased from 210,1 million tonnes to 166,2 million tonnes (4) (-20,9 %; -3,8 % annual growth rate (5)), whereas, at worldwide level, production increased from 1 348,1 million tonnes to 1 649,3 million tonnes (+22,3 %; +3,4 % annual growth rate). Notes that the decrease in the Union's share of steel production from 16 % of global steel production in 2007 to 10 % in 2013 has been more significant than in the United States and Russia, while there is a very sharp increase in the share for Asia, going from 56 % to 67 % during the same period and, as a result, the metalworking sector in Liege has decreased in recent years, from 6 193 jobs in 40 enterprises in 2007 to 4 187 jobs in 35 enterprises in 2012, a reduction of 32 % in employment in the sector;
8.

Notes that the Agency adopted its policy on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in October 2014; observes that the conflicts of interest policy requests that the Agency’s Administrative Board members and its management staff provide a declaration of conflicts of interest; notes that the declarations of conflicts of interest signed by the Agency’s Administrative Board members and its management staff were made publicly available; takes note that the publication of the CVs of the Agency’s management staff was declared to be optional under the conflicts of interest policy and that all four members of the Agency’s management provided their CVs for publication; encourages the Agency’s Administrative Board members to submit without delay their declarations of conflicts of interest for further publication on the Agency’s website in order to act on the Agency's duties of transparency and accountability;
3.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, the Joint Undertaking did not assess the quality of the audit reports received from the NFAs concerning the costs related to completed projects; notes, furthermore, that, after an assessment of the audit strategies of three of the NFAs, it was not possible to conclude whether ex post audits are functioning effectively due to different methodologies used by the NFAs which did not allow the Joint Undertaking to calculate either a weighted error rate or a residual rate error; notes also that ECSEL JTI confirmed that its extensive assessment of the national assurance systems concluded that they can provide reasonable protection of the financial interests of the Joint Undertakings’ members;
14.

Regrets that the repair works on the Centre's building in Greece were not finalised by the end of 2014; acknowledges, however, that the repairs are under the responsibility of the Government of the host Member State and that the relevant constructions works had to be suspended due to the economic situation in the host Member State; notes that the remaining works were to be finalised by the end of 2015 and calls on the Centre to further report to the discharge authority on this issue;
11.

Acknowledges the fact that, as a follow up from the 2013 discharge of the Agency, according to the lease agreement between the Greek authorities, the Agency and the landlord, rent for the offices in Athens is paid by the Greek authorities; is concerned about the constant late payment of rent, which continued in 2014 and 2015 and which presents significant reputational, financial and business-continuity risks for the Agency; notes with concern that in 2015, the payment of the instalment for the first six months of the year was made on 27 August 2015 and only after the Agency received a warning that litigation would be launched by the landlord of the Athens office; urges the Commission, the Agency and the Greek authorities to find a solution for this issue in order to reduce significantly the risks to which the Agency is exposed;
A.

whereas the Union has set up legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns or of the global financial and economic crisis and to assist their reintegration into the labour market; whereas the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) benefits workers who have been dismissed from small and medium-sized enterprises and multinationals, regardless of the policies or interests which motivated the closure decision, in particular of the latter ones; whereas the EGF Regulation and Union trade policy should further focus on how to safeguard jobs, production and know-how within the Union;
3.

Notes from the Court's report that the Joint Undertaking did not assess the quality of the audit reports received from the NFAs concerning the costs relating to completed projects; notes, furthermore, that after an assessment of the audit strategies of three of the NFAs it was not possible to conclude whether ex post audits were functioning effectively due to the different methodologies used by NFAs which did not allow the Joint Undertaking to calculate either a weighted error rate or a residual error rate;
9.

Notes that when the final accounts were prepared, the FCH2 did not receive the required reports from its members implementing Horizon 2020 projects as they were not yet due and therefore observes that the amount of 2015 in-kind contributions for the Horizon 2020 entered in the accounts was based on estimation by FCH2 of the costs incurred by members up to the end of 2015; points out in this respect that in-kind contributions will be communicated as a part of the first reporting under projects that is due in September 2016; recalls that the Court's report recommends that the Commission should present clear guidelines for the budgetary reporting and financial management of FCH2 and notes that those guidelines were issued on 20 December 2016 following that recommendation;
20.

Notes that, according to its annual management report for 2015, the Court of Justice works closely with the Court of Auditors' team designated to carry out its performance review; in this regard notes that, at the beginning of the audit process, the Court of Justice raised obstacles to the work of the audit team; notes with satisfaction that the Court of Justice has improved its cooperation with the auditors and provided further documents to Court of Auditors; is aware that the principle of secrecy of deliberations is necessary to help preserve the independence of decision-makers, to promote consistency and finality of decisions and to prevent decision-makers from having to spend more time testifying about their decisions than making them; points out, however, that the secrecy of deliberations as principle ab ovo prevents any external control; invites the Court of Justice, therefore, to develop an internal control/remedy mechanism in order to provide in such cases a certain level of control;
Official Journal of the European Union

P8_TA(2017)0117

Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Portugal

European Parliament resolution of 5 April 2017 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Portugal (COM(2017)0045 — C8-0022/2017 — 2017/2017(BUD))

(2018/C 298/37)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0045 — C8-0022/2017),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (1),

— 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 (2), and in particular Article 10 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 (3), and in particular point 11 thereof,

— having regard to the letter from the Committee on Regional Development,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0154/2017),

1. Welcomes the decision as a sign of the Union’s solidarity with Union citizens and regions hit by the natural disasters;

2. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

3. 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 ;

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

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

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

(3) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.
32.

Notes from the Court’s report that, in its audit report of November 2016, the IAS concluded that the controls in place for IT project management are adequate, but referred to significant weaknesses in relation to IT governance; notes that it recommended updating the Authority’s IT governance policy, to introduce an organisation-wide IT risk management framework and risk register and to separate the information security function from the IT unit; notes with satisfaction that the Authority agreed with the IAS on a plan to take corrective actions; notes from the Authority’ reply that the majority of actions related to IT governance have been implemented and the remaining actions are planned to be implemented by the end of 2017; calls on the Authority to report to the discharge authority on the implementation of the action plan;
26.

Notes that the Authority signed a 12-year-lease with an end date of 8 December 2026 and that, under normal contractual conditions, there is a liability to pay the full rent for the entire period; observes, however, that the Authority has negotiated a break-out clause at the midway point of the contract, meaning that if the clause is exercised, the Authority would be relieved of the obligation to pay the rent for the final six years; notes however that the Authority has the obligation to repay half of the incentive (16 months rent — equivalent to EUR 3 246 216) it had received at the beginning of the contract and which was based on the full 12 years term of the contract (32 months rent free) and that the re-instatement of the building to the initial condition has to be performed by the end of the occupancy, regardless of when the tenant leaves; recommends that lessons should be learned from this experience in the negotiation of all future rental contracts;
8.

Notes that by the end of 2016, the members of the Industry Grouping and the Research Grouping had reported in-kind contributions of EUR 4 900 000 for operational activities, and the governing board had validated cash contributions to the FCH2 administrative costs of EUR 1 200 000; notes, moreover, that out of the minimum of EUR 285 000 000 of in-kind contributions to be made by the other members for additional activities, EUR 188 600 000 (66 %) had already been reported and certified by the end of 2016; highlights the fact that, by the end of 2016, the total contributions of the members of the Industry Grouping and the Research Grouping consequently amounted to EUR 194 700 000, compared to the Union’s cash contribution of EUR 79 500 000; notes that the difference is explained by the high contribution of other FCH2 members to the additional activities of the FCH2;
1.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, the Court’s 2014 report noted underpayments to staff for the period 2005 to 2014 in relation to the transition to the new Staff Regulations in 2005; notes that, although the reasons for the underpayments (2014: non-respect of minimum guaranteed salaries; 2015: wrong multiplication factor on salaries) are different, the Court has again found underpayments (EUR 43 350) and some overpayments (EUR 168 930), affecting 30 active and previous staff members; notes that the Foundation corrected all underpayments, but will not recover the overpayments (in line with Article 85 of the current Staff Regulations); calls on the Foundation to analyse again any possible mistakes in relation to the transition to the 2005 Staff Regulations, carry out a full evaluation of its payroll function and report its findings to the discharge authority; acknowledges that, according to the Foundation, a comprehensive internal audit of the payroll function took place in April 2017; notes that the Foundation is awaiting the final report and due regard will be given to any recommendations made; calls on the Foundation to report to the discharge authority on the corrective measures that will be taken;
18.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, in 2014 the Commission, on behalf of more than 50 Union institutions and bodies (including the Agency), signed a framework contract with one contractor for the acquisition of software, licences and the provision of related IT maintenance and consultancy; notes that the framework contractor acts as an intermediary between the Agency and suppliers that can address the Agency’s needs; takes note that for these intermediary services, the framework contractor is entitled to a commission of two to nine percent of the suppliers’ prices; observes that in 2016, total payments to the framework contractor amounted to EUR 8 900 000; notes with regret that the Agency did not systematically check prices and uplifts charged with the suppliers’ quotes and invoices issued to the framework contractor; notes however that, following the Court's finding in October 2017, the Agency investigated the case which resulted in the contractor's acknowledgment of its mistake and an expected recovery of approximately EUR 12 000; also notes that, since October 2017, specific internal guidance has been put in place by the Agency; that guidance includes systematic checks of product category and related uplift for every quotation received from Comparex with a value above EUR 60 000;