RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 10 May 2012  
on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2010 Commission discharge  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (  1 ), 
— having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 
473 – C7 - 0256/2011) (  2 ), 
— having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget 
concerning the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (  3 ), and to the Court of 
Auditors’ special reports,  
— having regard to the statement of assurance (  4 ) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and 
regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 
pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  
— having regard to its Decision of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the 
general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III — Commission (  5 ) and to 
its resolution with observations that forms an integral part of that Decision,  
— having regard to the special reports of the Court of Auditors drawn up pursuant to the second 
subparagraph of Article 287(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  
— having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 on discharge to be given to the 
Commission in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 
financial year 2010 (06081/1/2012 – C7-0053/2012),  
— having regard to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty,  
— having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (  6 ), and in particular Articles 
55, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,  
— having regard to Rule 76 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,  
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0102/2012),  
A. whereas, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall execute the 
budget and manage programmes and shall do so, pursuant to Article 317 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union, in cooperation with the Member States, on its own responsibility, 
having regard to the principle of sound financial management,EN L 286/68 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.  
( 2 ) OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.  
( 5 ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0153 (see page 31 of this Official Journal).  
( 6 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
B. whereas the special reports of the Court of Auditors provide information on issues of concern related to 
the implementation of funds, which are thus useful for Parliament in exercising its role of discharge 
authority,  
C. whereas its observations on the special reports of the Court of Auditors form an integral part of 
Parliament’s abovementioned Decision of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation 
of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III — Commission,  
Part I Special Report No 7/2010 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Audit of the clearance of 
accounts procedure’  
1. Welcomes Special Report No 7/2010 on the clearance of accounts procedure in agricultural policy on 
account of its fundamental significance for the quality of the information which the Commission 
provides to Parliament during the discharge procedure;  
2. Regards the main conclusion of Special Report No 7/2010 as being its statements about the retro ­
spective corrections made to annual accounts by conformity decisions despite Parliament’s having in 
the meantime granted discharge and despite the consequent relativisation of the information provided 
during the discharge procedure;  
3. Is aware that the only possible complete remedy would lie in a change to the monitoring system for 
agricultural policy, which would only be feasible at the expense of considerably greater burdens for 
recipients of funding and the administrative authorities;  
4. Focuses its recommendations, therefore, mainly on ways of bringing about improvements within the 
existing system; also refers, in assessing the actual viability of this system, to Special Report 
No 8/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Recovery of undue payments made under the 
common agricultural policy’, and stresses the Court of Auditors’ criticism that the system as a 
whole does not make it possible to quantify undue farm payments made;  
5. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ call for a reform of the accounts clearance procedure, with the aim of:  
— reducing the duration of financial correction procedures with precise time limits and with 
graduated objection procedures,  
— establishing a clear relationship between sums recovered and the actual illegal payments, and 
excluding the possibility of ‘negotiations’ on the amount of financial corrections, as what is 
involved is genuine recovery of payments which have been made contrary to regulations, not a 
‘penalty’;  
6. Considers that, in order for the annual discharge procedure to be credible and to protect the financial 
interests of the Union, it is essential to improve the current system, and insists that, during the 
discharge procedure, the Commission provide the following information:  
— what amounts, fields and years of expenditure might yet be audited and how many financial 
corrections (minimum and maximum figures) might be made in respect of which Member States,  
— what conformity decisions actually relate to which financial years and how those decisions alter 
the figures for financial years in respect of which discharge has already been granted,  
— a precise estimate as to how many necessary corrections are not made as part of the conformity 
procedure and how many corrections can no longer be made in conformity decisions due to the 
24-months rule;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/69
7. Acknowledges the measures taken by the Commission to improve the reliability of the information 
from Member States’ inspection authorities which is used in the clearance of the accounts; draws 
attention to the Court of Auditors’ dramatic conclusion that most of those authorities are however 
unable to carry out the Commission’s measures; calls, therefore, for greater initiative from the 
Commission to train the administrative authorities of the Member States; calls on the Commission 
to provide structured back-up for, and to promote, the exchange of information by paying agencies 
and certification bodies using their networks and seminars, to communicate examples of best practice 
and to prepare joint solutions to legal problems by means of interpretation; regards risk-based audits 
as essential in relation to the certification bodies too;  
8. Regards further improvements to the statements of assurance issued by directors of paying agencies 
and by certification bodies as an essential measure to promote accountability; calls for a system to 
reward correct statements and penalise incorrect ones, particularly where systematic errors are 
identified which have not been declared in advance;  
9. Calls for a systematic flow of information from the executive administrations at the lowest level to the 
Commission, in order to enable the difficulties experienced on the ground to be taken into account in 
simplified legislation and its interpretation; calls on the Commission to ensure that officials of national 
paying agencies and of certification authorities are not penalised by their national authorities and their 
directors for reporting corrections to the Commission;  
10. Calls on the Commission to include paying agencies and certification authorities where there is a rapid 
turnover of staff in a risk-based audit and to include a communication to the discharge authority in 
the annual activity report; insists on an analysis of the correctness of the statements of assurance and 
that the discharge authority be informed of the error rate per Member State, indicating the main 
sources of errors;  
11. Calls for a review of the procedures which are employed to take conformity decisions, for the group 
of experts to be deployed more rapidly for the purpose of conciliation and for a targeted use of 
conciliation itself;  
12. Recommends that the figures called for in point 6 be incorporated in a special section of the annual 
discharge resolution and put to the vote in plenary;  
Part II Special Report No 13/2010 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Is the New European 
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument successfully launched and achieving 
results in the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia)?’  
13. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ audit and the recommendations contained therein; expresses its deep 
concern at the findings of the audit, which disclose major problems in the implementation of the 
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) by the Commission;  
14. Is deeply worried about the weaknesses in programming procedures revealed by the audit; calls on the 
Commission to follow the Court of Auditors’ recommendations by streamlining the procedures, 
improving the links between the strategic programming documents (European Neighbourhood 
Policy action plans, Country Strategy Papers and National Indicative Programmes) and making the 
timing of those documents more coherent, with the guiding objective of offering neighbouring 
countries the prospect of an increasingly close relationship with the Union;  
15. Finds unacceptable the way in which the Commission recourses to budget support within ENPI, 
treating it as the preferred aid modality in the three countries, without a detailed evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the available tools; stresses in this context that sector budget support is often relatedEN L 286/70 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
to a low visibility and occasional motivation by the governments, and is deeply concerned by the 
Court of Auditors’ conclusion that the suitability of an area for sector budget support became an 
important factor for determining assistance in the 2007 annual action programmes; urges the 
Commission to follow the Court of Auditors’ recommendation to choose sector budget support 
more selectively by considering all available options in ENPI and to develop a more balanced 
deployment of the different tools; stresses the need to increase the access of NGOs and the private 
sector in the beneficiary countries to the assistance provided;  
16. Is concerned by the audit’s findings that programming and design of assistance were not sufficiently 
guided by a structured dialogue with beneficiary countries, the dialogue being mainly driven by the 
Commission Headquarters, restricting a direct exchange of views to a few days of in-country missions, 
with insufficient evidence in reports of what had been discussed; is of the opinion that offering sector 
budget support to an oil-producing and exporting country, directed to the expanded use of renewable 
energy sources, could certainly not be a strong motivation for the government; calls on the 
Commission to take the necessary measures in order to strengthen this dialogue;  
17. Calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to consider the Court of 
Auditors’ recommendation that sufficient staff support be provided, also on the spot, including experts 
on budgetary support, and to assist strengthening of the general framework of the state administration 
of the beneficiary countries, using measures complementing the Twinning tool;  
18. Welcomes the pilot programme implemented by the Commission, that implies result-oriented moni ­
toring and which is explicitly tailored to Sector Policy Support Programme operations, and expects an 
evaluation report on the added value acknowledged in the three countries;  
Part III Special Report No 14/2010 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘The Commission’s 
management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 
2004 hygiene legislation reforms’  
19. Welcomes the Special Report of the Court of Auditors, the reply from the Commission and the report 
from the Commission on the effectiveness and consistency of sanitary and phytosanitary controls on 
imports of food, feed, animals and plants (COM(2010) 785);  
20. Supports the Court of Auditors’ recommendations for the optimisation of the Commission’s actions in 
the framework of its supervisory and coordination competences;  
21. Calls, in particular, for improvements in the following areas, as a contribution to better food safety of 
meat imports, thereby enhancing the protection of European citizens against unsafe food imports, 
while stressing that those recommendations of the Court of Auditors not explicitly mentioned in 
(a) to (e) below should not be overlooked:  
(a) in respect of the Court of Auditors’ first recommendation, the Commission is requested to 
endeavour to level out the different treatments of Member States in third countries and to take 
action against the resulting discriminatory competitive disadvantages;  
(b) in respect of the Court of Auditors’ third recommendation, the Commission is requested to 
instruct the Member States to use the existing information systems more effectively and to 
integrate them to a greater extent, in order to improve coordination between border inspection 
posts and customs authorities;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/71
(c) in respect of the Court of Auditors’ fourth recommendation, the Commission is requested to assist 
the Member States with the development, implementation and evaluation of the national moni ­
toring and control plans; is of the opinion that, with due consideration for the principle of 
subsidiarity, a basic set of analyses should be established in order to cover the detection of 
common categories of hormonal residue (e.g. anabolics) and/or environmental contaminants 
(dioxins, heavy metals), etc., and that their application should be mandatory; considers that, as 
a first step, efforts could be made to raise awareness through the ‘Better training for safer food’ 
programme (BTSF) in order to raise awareness of this issue in the competent authorities of the 
Member States; considers that monitoring of compliance with provisions on charges should be a 
further aim;  
(d) in respect of the Court of Auditors’ seventh recommendation, the Commission is requested to 
submit a proposal to Parliament and the Council to enable legislative or judicial action to be taken 
against Member States that regularly and over an extended period infringe Regulation (EC) 
No 882/2004 (  1 ), thus jeopardising the safety of European citizens;  
(e) in respect of the Court of Auditors’ eighth recommendation, the Commission is requested to 
harmonise the implementation of reinforced checks and to arrive at a precise and clear formu ­
lation of the rules governing reinforced checks at border inspection posts; the Commission is also 
requested to consider introducing a prescribed number of laboratory tests for Member States 
following checks on goods at border inspection posts;  
22. Notes that European meat and food producers must comply with rigorous production and quality 
standards; is greatly concerned that those production standards do not apply to third country 
producers exporting to the Union, as the Court of Auditors also noted; requests the Commission 
to address this issue and to submit proposals without delay to Parliament and the Council on 
appropriate ways of mitigating the ensuing negative impacts on the competitiveness of European 
meat and food producers;  
Part IV Special Report No 1/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Has the devolution of the 
Commission’s management of external assistance from its headquarters to its 
delegations led to improved aid delivery?’  
23. Welcomes the very comprehensive and analytical report prepared by the Court of Auditors, as well as 
the excellent timing for the assessment of the results of the devolution;  
24. Supports the findings of the Court of Auditors that the devolution clearly led to an increased speed of 
delivery, improvements in the quality of aid and improved financial management of aid;  
25. Encourages the Commission to complement the criteria and to strengthen the procedures for 
assessment of the quality of the projects financed, in order to increase the quality of aid and to 
further decrease the number of non-performing projects; stresses that the impact of the aid expen ­
diture is of paramount importance to Parliament;  
26. Calls on the Commission to consider the promotion of local consultations, where possible, when 
deciding on aid projects and monitoring their progress;  
27. Expects that the Commission will take all the necessary measures to overcome the weaknesses of the 
supervisory and control systems, notably at Union Delegations’ level;EN L 286/72 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls 
performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules 
(OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
28. Expresses concern over persisting problems with staff involved in aid policies; considers that the high 
turnover of staff in the DG for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid, as well as the insufficient 
numbers of staff with appropriate qualifications in the Union Delegations, should be addressed 
without delay; is of the opinion that, where necessary, the Commission should cooperate with the 
EEAS with a view to ensuring an appropriate human resource capacity for aid management in the 
Union Delegations; expects a detailed report from the Commission by the end of 2012 in which 
measures are planned and introduced to overcome these shortcomings;  
29. Encourages the Commission to require the Union Delegations to systematically carry out technical and 
financial monitoring visits to the projects and to focus the internal reporting system more on the 
results achieved by the aid interventions;  
30. Calls on the Commission, with the active participation of the Union Delegations, to analyse and 
identify possibilities to leverage the aid programmes in the partner countries with the involvement of 
the European Investment Bank as well as European national and international institutions financing 
development;  
Part V Special Report No 2/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Follow-up of Special 
Report No 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office’  
31. Urges the Commission to implement without further delay the recommendations made in Special 
Report No 1/2005, since, out of the 14 recommendations accepted by the Commission, only two 
have been fully implemented to date; expects to be fully informed on the progress made in imple ­
menting the outstanding 12 recommendations;  
32. Welcomes the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) makes more use of its investigative 
powers, for example by carrying out on-the-spot checks and interviews or by focusing on more 
serious and complex cases; is appreciative of the fuller use of OLAF’s electronic case management 
system and the introduction of the time management system; but regrets that the average case 
duration remains over two years and that in 2009 investigative casework accounted for only 37 % 
of the time of OLAF as a whole;  
33. Calls on OLAF to improve its time management in such a way as to ensure better allocation of tasks 
in order to reduce time spent on non-investigative tasks; is interested in seeing the real results of the 
non-investigative work performed, which accounts for 63 % of the overall time;  
34. Notes that, according to figure 2 of Special Report No 2/2011, ‘clear objectives and planning’ was 
judged to be the weakest aspect during an investigation; recommends the appropriate setting of clear 
objectives for each investigation in the future, taking into account the fact that the foundation of any 
investigation and its resource planning are clear objectives;  
35. Notes that, according to Special Report No 2/2011, ‘there is still no independent control of the legality 
of investigative acts in progress, nor is there a code guaranteeing that investigative acts follow a 
predictable course’, notwithstanding repeated announcements made by OLAF in the past; notes, 
furthermore, that although there is an explicit will in the Commission’s amended proposal for a 
Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (COM(2011) 135) to put in place a review 
procedure, this will not be equal to an independent control of the legality of individual investigations 
and is thus even weaker in this regard than the initial proposal; recalls that this is a key demand, 
reflected also in the case-law of the Court of Justice; therefore considers it a must to ensure such a 
control mechanism, not only in order to protect the rights of the persons or economic operators 
concerned but also to protect the rights of the investigators of OLAF from legal proceedings initiated 
by those persons or economic operators; also stresses the need for a clear mandate for OLAF with 
regard to the other institutions of the Union;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/73
36. Shares the opinion of the Court of Auditors concerning the need for a comprehensive single 
document which clearly reflects the performance of OLAF in the different sectors, making it 
possible to measure progress year by year; underlines the importance of drawing a distinction 
between reports drawn up for the public and those drawn up for internal use; is of the opinion 
that a detailed report available to the public is of the utmost importance, as it would enable a reliable 
comparison to be made of OLAF’s performance in time and across sectors;  
37. Regrets the fact that it is not always possible to evaluate the results of OLAF’s activities, as information 
is presented in different documents drawn up for different purposes and with different addressees; 
urges the Commission to establish a system for information dissemination which is unified, clear and 
comparable and which will enable full and objective evaluation of OLAF’s activities;  
38. Stresses that the time spent on evaluation of incoming information has doubled since 2004, 
from 3,5 to 7,1 months; is of the opinion that the initial assessment phase should be limited to 
proving or rejecting the reality of the allegations contained in the initial information; is of the opinion 
that carrying out investigative activities during the initial assessment phase, which as a consequence 
not only causes legal uncertainty but also distorts the statistics concerning the different aspects of 
investigations, should be avoided; suggests that an investigation be initiated using the available 
investigative possibilities in case the information, gathered during the initial assessment and using 
the legal instruments available during that initial assessment, does not enable OLAF to decide whether 
or not to open a case;  
39. Agrees with the Court of Auditors that briefer investigation periods and better-quality final reports 
could contribute to a more effective sanction system allowing for recovery, disciplinary, or criminal 
proceedings;  
40. Regrets the fact that, in spite of the cooperation agreement signed in 2008 between OLAF and 
Eurojust, under which OLAF is obliged to notify Eurojust of every case of suspected fraud among 
economic operators in more than one Member State, OLAF sent such notification to Eurojust in only 
five cases in 2008 and only one case in 2009, which shows that the cooperation between OLAF and 
Eurojust is not working, and calls for all measures to be taken to intensify activity in this area;  
41. Urges OLAF to further enhance cooperation with Member States on a robust legal basis; supports in 
this respect the idea of further consolidating the existing different legal bases with a view to enhanced 
cooperation; agrees with the recommendation of the Court of Auditors that agreements be concluded 
with national investigative services where there is a lack of specific legislation in order to clarify the 
detailed rules governing cooperation and information exchange;  
Part VI Special Report No 3/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘The efficiency and effec ­
tiveness of EU contributions channelled through United Nations Organisations in 
conflict-affected countries’  
42. Welcomes the report of the Court of Auditors and endorses the conclusions and recommendations 
made in that report;  
43. Appreciates the fact that working with the United Nations (UN) enables the Commission to reach 
regions of the world that it would not be able to reach on its own; is aware of the high inherent risk 
involved in delivering aid to conflict-affected regions; is concerned, however, about the weaknesses 
identified with regard to the efficiency of projects and delays in finishing projects; welcomes the recent 
decisions by the Executive Boards of Unicef, UNDP, UNOPS and UNFPA to disclose internal audit 
reports to the Commission;  
44. Calls on the Commission to ensure transparency with regard to the Union funds to be spent by the 
UN during the annual budgetary procedure, to improve the planning of spending with the UN and to 
speed up its internal procedures so as to achieve quicker results;EN L 286/74 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
45. Is of the opinion that proper monitoring inevitably depends on adequate reporting; is deeply 
concerned about the fact that reporting still remains inadequate despite the numerous calls by 
Parliament, in its successive discharge resolutions, for this situation to be improved and the 
numerous commitments given by the Commission and UN agencies to implement rapidly the 
necessary measures; urges the Commission to present to Parliament, before the end of March 2012 
at the latest, an action plan with clear and contractual milestones, specifically designed to improve 
drastically the reporting system for all projects and programmes financed via the joint management 
mode and delegated to the UN agencies;  
46. Calls on the Commission, when financing projects with other donors through a Multi-donor Trust 
Fund, to know the exact proportion of the project which is funded; is of the opinion that, with a view 
to better control mechanisms, the money should be managed in a separate account; believes that, if 
the project specifications are not satisfactory, the Commission must be able to reject the project, and 
that the same should apply if the Union’s representatives are not sufficiently included in the 
programme planning process;  
47. Shares the Court of Auditors’ view that the Commission’s controls on legality and regularity should be 
complemented by adequate checks on the effectiveness and efficiency of projects; calls on the 
Commission, therefore, to define, together with the EEAS, clear and measurable objectives and to 
set up adequate control measures; underlines in this context the importance of obtaining reasonable 
assurance from the implementing partners; recalls that Parliament has called for statements of 
assurance from the implementing partners and insists on this request; asks the Commission to 
formalise those statements and to make them available to Parliament during the discharge procedure; 
shares the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS) recommendations that  ex-ante  controls be carried 
out in contract agreements and payments in order to check the eligibility of costs proposed and 
claimed; insists that discussions on those issues must be documented in the file; underlines the 
opinion of IAS that the additional administrative costs and other indirect costs claimed by the UN 
and paid by the Union must be well documented and justified;  
48. Supports the Court of Auditors’ opinion to evaluate realistic time-frames for projects on the basis of 
the given circumstances, so as to avoid a time and cost explosion, as laid down in the Financial and 
Administrative Framework Agreement between the European Community and the United Nations 
(FAFA); reminds the Commission of its ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the budget; 
asks the Commission to update Parliament on the use of the revised Union-UN reporting guidelines;  
49. Calls on the Commission to apply a cost comparison mechanism to identify and avoid overbilling and 
to refuse additional indirect costs resulting from subcontracting, which the Court of Auditors 
identified in two cases; asks the Commission to carry out joint investigations together with UN if 
there are doubts about the credibility of projects;  
50. Regrets that only very few of the projects examined concern the Multi-donor-Trust Funds; invites the 
Court of Auditors to publish a special report focussing exclusively on the management of Multi- 
donor-Trust Funds;  
51. Invites the Court of Auditors to inform Parliament in the event of continuous difficulties in obtaining 
full access to UN auditors’ working documents pursuant to the FAFA agreement; recalls that 
Parliament has demanded that such access be granted; asks the Commission, if its own services 
continue to be given insufficient access to such documents, to withhold future payments on the 
corresponding files, in application of the specific provisions of the Financial Regulation used in case of 
lack of justifications; invites the Commission to report to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary 
Control, during the next discharge exercise, on the basis of the evolution of the situation, both on 
access to audit reports and on the quality of reporting; asks the Commission to refrain from 
delegating new projects and programmes to the UN agencies if those measures are not implemented;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/75
Part VII Special Report No 4/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘The audit of the SME 
Guarantee facility’  
52. Welcomes the Special Report as a first analysis of a financial instrument by the Court of Auditors; 
points out that the SME Guarantee facility (SMEG facility) is regarded as the most successful of all 
Union programmes concerning financial instruments; expects to hear from the Commission whether 
there has been any change in the 1:10 leverage effect of the financial instrument apparent in 2009 or 
in the loss rate of approximately 0,045 % noted by the Court of Auditors at the end of 2009;  
53. Considers that the SMEG facility is a useful programme, despite the Court of Auditors’ justified 
criticism of the lack of proof of Union added value and the purely local significance of the 
support for craft enterprises and retail shops; suggests that, in view of the importance of SMEs to 
the economic structure of the Member States and of the Union as a whole, the 13 countries covered 
by the programme should be presented and their results examined, since conclusions can be drawn 
from this for the more precise targeting of the SMEG facility;  
54. Expects the Commission to discuss and address the issues of Union added value and of deadweight in 
a credible way, because the objective of Union action cannot be to establish structures for purely 
national action or to replace national action; considers this fundamental criticism of the SMEG facility 
by the Court of Auditors to be serious, as are the Court of Auditors’ concerns that the scope of 
support is too broad-based and does not focus solely on providing SMEs with limited access to 
external finance;  
55. Considers that an open debate is necessary on how the SMEG facility is funded; points out the 
reduction in the budget line in 2010 of EUR 57 300 000 from the Competitiveness and Innovation 
Framework Programme (CIP); asks for clarification as to how many staff in the Commission and in the 
European Investment Fund (EIF) are involved in the management of the SMEG facility and how high 
the respective administrative costs are; asks for information on how many applications are in fact 
rejected;  
56. Takes note of the general observations made by the Court of Auditors on an improved, results- 
oriented fee system for the financial services provided by the EIF; notes that the Commission fails to 
respond to this point at all, and expects it to provide more specific information;  
57. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendations that:  
— future SME support programmes should be based upon an explicit intervention logic,  
— performance indicators should be improved so as to allow the Commission to monitor better the 
achievements of the facility’s objectives,  
— more specific targets reflecting better the objectives of the financial instrument should be set, 
monitoring should be updated so as to measure progress towards achieving those targets, and 
appropriate measures to minimise the deadweight should be envisaged,  
notes with satisfaction that the Commission has accepted the abovementioned recommendations, and 
calls upon the Commission to report to Parliament on the steps it has envisaged and/or has already 
taken;  
58. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendations and calls upon the Commission to ensure that:  
— for any subsequent facility, the legal basis and the management agreement is finalised well before 
the effective start of the programming period,EN L 286/76 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
— for any successor programme a scoring system for the assessment of potential intermediary 
applications is put in place, and minimum selection requirements are defined,  
notes that the Commission’s position is to consider those recommendations further, and calls upon 
the Commission to report to Parliament on its conclusions and on whether any actions are envisaged 
to deal with those recommendations;  
Part VIII Special Report No 5/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Single Payment Scheme 
(SPS): issues to be addressed to improve its sound financial management’  
59. Welcomes the report of the Court of Auditors and reads with great interest the conclusions and 
recommendations contained therein; congratulates the Court of Auditors on having delivered a report 
on a relevant topic at the right time;  
60. Is of the opinion that the SPS insufficiently contributes to the Treaty objectives of the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP); calls on the Commission, therefore, to propose the necessary changes in the 
legislation so that the SPS really makes an optimal contribution to the CAP objectives; is of the 
opinion that the SPS should be improved towards better targeting the aid towards real farmers; urges 
the Council to support Parliament and the Commission in their efforts to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the single largest European support scheme, thereby helping to better direct Union 
taxpayers’ money;  
61. Is of the opinion that there is too high a degree of flexibility (e.g. the rules on good agricultural and 
environmental conditions, GAEC) and room for interpretation in the basic rules of the SPS; calls on 
the Commission to provide more precise guidance on the implementation of Union legal acts in the 
Member States legislation, so as to avoid Member States stretching the rules; believes in this context 
that the Commission should be given adequate delegated powers to eliminate loopholes and remedy 
shortcomings as quickly as possible;  
62. Is of the opinion that the historic model has served its purpose and should therefore be abandoned 
within the next multiannual financial framework; supports the Court of Auditors’ recommendation 
No 6, which recommends basing SPS aid on the current farming conditions in the different regions of 
the Union; believes, furthermore, that the current 20 models should be narrowed down to arrive at, 
preferably, one single Union model applicable in all Member States;  
63. Recalls that the entry of new farmers into the agricultural sector is of great importance for ensuring 
innovation in that sector; is therefore concerned about the findings of the Court of Auditors that some 
Member States applying SPS (5 out of 17) do not make use of available options from the national 
reserve to facilitate new farmers’ access to business and thereby boost generational change in rural 
areas;  
64. Is of the opinion that the current SPS functions in a way that fails to stimulate sufficient innovation in 
the agricultural sector and, furthermore, prevents newcomers from entering the sector;  
65. Is especially concerned that no direct link exists between SPS aid and the costs incurred by farmers in 
complying with good agricultural and environmental conditions; believes that this results in an 
imbalance between the volume of aid and a better environment, animal welfare and food safety; 
acknowledges, nevertheless, that the principle of decoupling restricts the establishment of such a link;  
66. Believes that the Commission, in its proposal for a CAP post-2013, should ensure that the distribution 
of aid between farmers is more balanced;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/77
Part IX Special Report No 6/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Were ERDF co-financed 
tourism projects effective?’  
67. Welcomes the findings of the Court of Auditors, in particular the fact that all the projects had positive 
results in one form or another, and that the majority had successful results under several headings; 
also notes that the projects were found to have benefited the local economy and/or helped to preserve 
elements of a region’s cultural, historic, artistic or environmental heritage;  
68. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ observation that the creation or maintenance of employment are key 
factors in the drive to balanced sustainable development of the economy and of employment;  
69. Notes with concern that objectives were set for only 58 % of the projects in the sample, while the 
remaining 42 % did not have objectives in terms of performance, and there was no monitoring of 
results for most of the projects in the sample;  
70. Regrets the fact that it was difficult to assess the true performance of projects or the extent of 
European added value due to an absence of systematic setting of project objectives, establishment 
of targets and indicators and the subsequent monitoring and evaluation of results;  
71. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendation to the Managing Authorities that they should ensure 
that suitable objectives, targets and indicators (for example, in terms of the number of jobs created, 
the additional tourism capacity created and the increase in tourism activity) are established at the grant 
application and decision stages, with a view to enabling projects to be selected which are likely to be 
the most efficient, and to ensure the evaluation of their results; urges the Commission and the 
Members States to encourage this practice;  
72. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendation inviting the Commission to undertake an evaluation 
of aid in the tourism sector, to consider the extent to which it forms a cost-effective means of support 
for Member States’ efforts to foster economic growth, and to consider whether such support could be 
better targeted;  
73. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to simplify the ERDF subsidy process in order to minimise the 
administrative burden faced by promoters; urges the Commission to report on progress in this area;  
Part X Special Report No 7/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Is agri-environment 
support well designed and managed?’  
74. Recognises the importance of agri-environmental measures as a key element of Union policies aimed 
at mitigating the adverse effects of agriculture on the environment; recognises agri-environment 
payments as a way to ‘encourage farmers and other land managers to serve society as a whole by 
introducing or continuing to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection 
and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and 
genetic diversity’ (  1 ); 
75. Stresses, at the same time, that public expenditure should be undertaken in such a way as to ensure 
maximum cost-effectiveness and tangible results; underlines the urgent need for the most effective 
delivery in respect of Union commitments (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, EU 2020 
biodiversity strategy, etc.);  
76. Is worried by the Court of Auditors’ finding that agri-environment policy is not designed and 
monitored so as to deliver tangible environmental benefits, in that the objectives of agri-environment 
payments are not sufficiently specific to permit an assessment of whether they have been achieved, theEN L 286/78 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1), recital 35.
environmental pressures cited do not provide a clear justification of agri-environment payments, and 
the achievements of agri-environment policy cannot be easily monitored; calls on the Member States 
to establish clearly targeted rural development programmes, and calls on the Commission to assess 
those programmes more rigorously before approving them; underlines the importance of a well- 
managed Union evaluation network for rural development;  
77. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that farmers are generally well supported through 
appropriate guidance; notes, however, the need to improve dissemination of best practices and 
feed-back on results; calls on the Commission and the Member States to make better use of 
existing structures for this purpose, such as the European Network for Rural Development;  
78. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that farmers are generally well supported through 
appropriate guidance, and notes the many cases of best practice identified by the Court of 
Auditors; is concerned that most Member States do not assess the minimum participation level 
needed in order to ensure that sub-measures provide the expected environmental effects, and 
whether the aid amounts are adequate to reach that minimum level; is of the opinion that the 
Leader approach to rural development could also be used to implement a collective approach;  
79. Is concerned about the weaknesses in establishing aid amounts found by the Court of Auditors; calls 
on the Commission, before approving programmes, to ensure that all elements identified by the Court 
of Auditors as necessary for the proper establishment of aid amounts are duly taken into account;  
80. Is concerned that most of the expenditure was made on ‘horizontal’ sub-measures which were 
implemented over the whole programme area without this always being justified in the rural devel ­
opment programmes; considers it unacceptable that Member States make only limited use of targeting 
and selection procedures; considers that the lack of targeting should in all cases be justified in the 
programmes;  
81. Is deeply concerned that the management of agri-environment policy does not sufficiently take 
account of specific environmental needs, thus not providing best value for money; finds it 
unacceptable that, according to the Court of Auditors’ finding, in 39 % of the audited contracts 
there were no specific environmental pressures in the area where the contract was implemented, or 
such problems could not be identified by the Member States; calls on the Member States to 
concentrate on a collective approach where this would ensure the desired environmental effect;  
82. In the context of the next programming period, emphasises that, in order for the agri-environment 
payments to achieve the desired effects in terms of biodiversity, preservation and development of high 
nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes, water and climate 
change, it is necessary to target agri-environmental schemes to more specific priorities;  
83. Welcomes the approach chosen in the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2011) 627/2), which will place greater emphasis on 
continuous monitoring and on performance indicators for rural development programmes;  
Part XI Special Report No 8/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Recovery of undue 
payments made under the common agricultural policy’  
84. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ Special Report and takes note of its findings; underlines Parliament’s 
long-standing criticism that the recovery system is only partially working; stresses that the Commis ­
sion’s ‘better’ figures on recovery still signify that recipients unlawfully retain 60 % of undue payments; 
notes that, on the basis of the figures presented by the Court of Auditors, that proportion is as high as 
90 %;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/79
85. Endorses the recommendations made by the Court of Auditors that the Commission should:  
— request Member States to report irregularities and other recoveries at the time the recovery 
notification has been drawn up,  
— introduce a uniform time-limit between the discovery of a potential irregularity and the notifi ­
cation of the recovery order to the debtor, enhancing harmonisation between Member States and 
ensuring a more timely transmission of information to OLAF,  
— issue clear and unambiguous rules in relation to the application, recording and reporting of 
interest on outstanding debt,  
— clarify the circumstances under which debts can be declared as irrecoverable, in particular in 
relation to insolvency cases, and  
— make each year an accurate estimate of undue payments to final beneficiaries, in order to establish 
how much should have been recovered from final beneficiaries, and book the recoveries precisely 
to the year in which losses occurred;  
86. Notes that the recovery system, overall, covers only a fraction of payments and that, of the estimated 
EUR 500 000 000 000 in CAP payments made in the last 10 years, EUR 5 000 000 000 (1 %) has 
been recovered (Special Report No 7/2010); further notes that it is therefore more costly to maintain a 
functioning control system than to pay financial corrections to the Commission;  
87. Notes the Commission’s position that it wishes to give further consideration to those recommen ­
dations, and calls on the Commission to report to Parliament on the actions it envisages in order to 
accommodate those recommendations;  
88. Regrets that the percentage of debts written off and borne by the Union budget was 87,8 % or 
EUR 428 900 000 for the period 2006-2009; asks the Commission to apply a sanction mechanism 
if Member States are writing off debts as irrecoverable when it is not appropriate to do so; insists that 
this will require a clear and practical definition of the guidelines, without any room for different 
interpretations;  
89. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendations and calls on the Commission to ensure that:  
— the way in which debts in the Member States are managed and reported upon is further improved, 
and to ensure the consistent treatment of those debts across all Member States,  
— guidelines are issued in a timely manner to address persistent inconsistencies in key reporting and 
accounting concepts,  
— application of the 50/50 rule is reviewed, in particular as regards the amounts that potentially 
escape clearance, and the 50/50 rule is effectively implemented,  
— the work of the certification bodies, in their testing of debtors’ accounts in the Member States, 
covers the highlighted risks,  
— a greater proportion of undue payments is recovered from beneficiaries,  
— the follow-up of the old Task Force Recovery cases is finalised and homogeneously treated 
between all the Member States;EN L 286/80 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
90. Takes note of the Commission’s clarifications concerning those recommendations, and invites the 
Commission to further consider those suggestions; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament 
on its conclusions, and to state whether any steps are envisaged in the context of those recommen ­
dations;  
91. Welcomes the initiative of OLAF to study the possibility of a modification of Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 1848/2006 of 14 December 2006 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly 
paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an 
information system in this field (  1 ), in order to improve the flow and the use of existing information; 
invites OLAF to report its findings to Parliament;  
92. Calls for equal treatment of the outstanding debt (recoveries) in all Member States, and insists that 
steps be taken to ensure that moneys due to the Union in consequence of infringements of Union law 
are actually paid back, despite the fact that some of them are suffering from the financial crisis;  
93. Notes that the amount charged to the Member States under the 50/50 rule (2006-2009) is 
EUR 424 000 000 and that 58 % thereof applies to Italy; asks that an action plan be drawn up for 
Italy in order to remedy this situation;  
94. Recalls that there is still a lack of transparency concerning publication, in the financial statements 
presented to Parliament, of the amounts deducted from Member States (effectively taxpayers’ money) 
and the amounts actually recovered from beneficiaries; asks the Commission to supply this 
information to Parliament;  
95. Invites the Court of Auditors to publish a report on the same subject for the area of structural funds;  
Part XII Special Report No 9/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Have the e-Government 
projects supported by ERDF been effective?’  
96. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ Special Report and its assessment that e-Government projects 
supported by the ERDF have contributed to the development of electronic public services;  
97. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendations, in particular that:  
— Member States should develop strategies for e-Government which are based upon identified needs, 
have clear objectives and assign responsibilities to the bodies accountable for the achievement of 
those objectives,  
— Managing Authorities should select e-Government projects for ERDF support on the basis of an 
assessment of likely project costs and qualitative and quantitative benefits,  
— Managing Authorities in Member States should ensure that e-Government projects selected for 
ERDF funding focus not only on project outputs but also on the changes in processes or 
organisation necessary to benefit from the systems developed,  
— Managing Authorities should be encouraged to apply best practice, advice on which is available 
via, for example, the ePractice community, and should recommend the use of an appropriate 
project management methodology for e-Government projects in receipt of ERDF funding,  
— the Commission should be invited to continue its efforts to ensure that Union principles and 
recommendations enabling trans-European interoperability, in particular the EIF principles, are 
applied in projects benefiting from the ERDF,EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/81  
( 1 ) OJ L 355, 15.12.2006, p. 56.
— Managing Authorities, when selecting e-Government projects, should ensure that all significant 
costs, including maintenance costs, have been sufficiently provided for in the cost-benefit analysis 
underpinning the financing decision,  
— the Commission should be invited to continue its efforts to ensure that Managing Authorities 
monitor and evaluate project results and impacts in order to demonstrate the effective use of 
Union funding and provide feedback to improve the design of future programmes;  
Part XIII Special Report No 10/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Are the School Milk 
and School Fruit Schemes effective?’  
98. Recalls the outcome of the 1999 external evaluation of the School Milk Scheme and the observation 
made by the Court of Auditors that no real changes have been made to the scheme ever since;  
99. Emphasises that the mere continuation of the current School Milk Scheme would be a waste of 
taxpayers’ money and that the scheme should therefore be discontinued unless it is immediately and 
comprehensively reformed;  
100. Underlines that only 10 % of the schools entitled to participate in the School Milk Scheme currently 
take advantage of it; accordingly, considers that Member States have shown their support for the 
programme despite the low subsidy rate and possible ‘deadweight effect’ of the programme; 
encourages Member States to establish national nutrition programmes for schools, thereby 
replacing the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes with better targeted measures;  
101. Is convinced that, if continued, the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes should function in similar 
ways with the view to facilitating coordination and the creation of synergies, as their objectives are the 
same;  
102. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to target, on a scientific basis, the children and 
pupils who would benefit most (in terms of nutritional needs, age group, health condition, social 
group, etc.) from those schemes; underlines that targeting will also make it easier to measure the 
impact of the schemes;  
103. Is of the opinion that the products should be distributed free of charge, and that distribution in 
canteens should be avoided;  
104. Insists that the distribution of products falling under those schemes must be embedded in a national 
and/or regional strategy, and underlines that such a strategy must also comprise accompanying 
measures (in the form of educational and information measures involving parents and teachers);  
105. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to put in place a co-financing system for the School 
Milk Scheme similar to that used for the School Fruit Scheme; believes that the Commission and the 
Member States could consider extending co-financing to accompanying measures; further believes that 
unused national financial envelopes could be reallocated among Member States;  
106. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to put in place effective monitoring and control 
systems;EN L 286/82 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
Part XIV Special Report No 11/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Do the design and 
management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?’  
107. Welcomes the Special Report of the Court of Auditors and takes note of its finding that:  
— the legal provisions on the geographical indications scheme do not lay down minimum 
requirements concerning checks of product specifications and lack to address issues such as the 
minimum coverage of checks, their frequency, the methodology for their selection and the parties 
involved in the different stages of the production and distribution subject to control,  
— Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 does not address the questions of the obligatory character and 
nature of checks to be carried out by the Member States to prevent and detect disallowed 
practices in connection with the geographical indications scheme;  
108. Is concerned that, according to the Court of Auditors’ audit, this results in a situation where the 
Member States’ control systems differ in a number of important respects, and is of the opinion that 
those differences need to be reduced in the future; takes note of the Commission’s proposal 
(COM(2010) 733) forming part of the so-called ‘quality package’; calls for an adequate control 
structure and system that ensures a consistently high product quality of protected designation of 
origin and protected geographical indication and effectively prevents and detects disallowed practices 
in all Member States; however, is of the opinion that this must not lead to the creation of additional 
control layers, the definition of maximum control requirements and a further increase in bureaucracy;  
109. Supports the Court of Auditors’ recommendation that audits on Member States’ checks of the 
geographical indications scheme be included in the Commission’s plan for regular audits in the 
Member States, and requests the Commission to react correspondingly;  
110. Recalls the Court of Auditors’ finding that the procedure for scrutiny of applications at national and at 
Commission level is lengthy, and asks the Commission to simplify and shorten the bureaucratic and 
lengthy registration procedures in order to make the geographical indications scheme more attractive 
for potential applicants currently discouraged by overly time-consuming application procedures;  
111. Is concerned that the Court of Auditors’ audit found awareness of the geographical indications scheme 
amongst consumers and producers to be low; is also worried that the options currently used were 
found to be unlikely to raise awareness of the geographical indications scheme and inadequate to 
encourage producers to participate; consequently, requests the Commission to thoroughly examine the 
situation, develop a clear strategy and define effective measures and means which address the current 
lack of awareness of the geographical indications scheme, its products and its logos, such as running a 
campaign on its own initiative, etc.;  
112. Supports the Court of Auditors’ recommendation that a system of mutual assistance which takes into 
account the specific needs of the national authorities dealing with the geographical indications scheme 
be put in place;  
113. Recalls that the Union geographical indications system differentiates between two types of protected 
names: protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication; points out that these 
descriptions are confusing for consumers, as they do not show clearly what the difference between 
them is; therefore proposes clearer indicators enabling consumers to see how the protected names 
differ in terms of the degree and the kind of relationship which exists between a product and a 
geographical region;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/83
114. Is concerned by recent press releases which report inappropriate and abusive use of geographical 
indications by some third countries; asks the Commission to take active measures to protect products 
registered under the Union geographical indications scheme also in an international trading context, 
and to work on respective agreements with third countries;  
115. Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament of the outcome of its actions;  
Part XV Special Report No 15/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Do the Commission’s 
procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?’  
116. Welcomes the Special Report and endorses, in general, the Court of Auditors’ recommendations with 
the following remarks, noting that only eight Member-States were selected for the audit;  
117. Takes note of the Court of Auditors’ s assessment that the Commission has promptly and effectively 
reacted to the financial crisis, and in this way has contributed substantially to avoiding the bankruptcy 
of any major financial institution headquartered in the Union;  
118. Invites the Commission to adopt a more proactive stance in its relationship with Member States, in 
particular:  
— to make greater efforts to raise awareness about State aid rules by disseminating information 
concerning best practices and providing more practical guidance,  
— to ensure that, when applicable, all State aid is duly notified, and to develop means to discipline 
Member States when that is not done,  
— to make more human resources available for State aid control without further delay;  
119. Notes the weaknesses as regards the need to speed up the decision process and to increase its 
transparency, and invites the Commission to take steps to limit the length of the investigation 
procedure; notes the high number of requests for information sent to Member States, and encourages 
the Commission to limit those requests so as to accelerate the procedure; calls on the Commission to 
inform Parliament of the average time needed to finalise cases over the last four years per individual 
Member State;  
120. Encourages the Commission to further consider whether the lessons learned from the successful 
handling of the financial crisis could be used also to streamline the work under ‘normal’ circum ­
stances, and invites the Commission to inform Parliament, before September 2012, about possible 
changes to be introduced;  
121. Underlines the importance of ensuring legal certainty for all stakeholders; consequently, calls on the 
Commission:  
— to deal swiftly with unfounded complaints,  
— to speed up the complaint handling procedure in general and to allocate the necessary resources in 
order to further reduce the backlog,  
— to duly inform the complainant, the Member State and the beneficiary about the cases in progress 
and about the outcome of the investigation;EN L 286/84 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
122. Notes the weaknesses in the use of available human resources, and welcomes the Commission’s 
intention to implement an enhanced system of time recording; endorses the Court of Auditors 
suggestion for a management reporting designed to effectively monitor the time spent on particular 
cases and the workload of case handlers; expects such a system to be operational by the end of 2012;  
123. Stresses the importance of monitoring State aid; therefore encourages the Commission to step up its 
monitoring activities, in terms of both sample size and scope;  
124. Notes the weaknesses in the data gathering process, and invites the Commission to improve its 
efficiency and reliability, and to report on the progress of introduction of the SARI application (  1 ) 
before the end of the 2010 discharge procedure;  
125. Invites the Commission to broaden its  ex-post  impact assessment of State aid and of State aid control 
on companies, markets and the overall economy;  
126. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice 
of the European Union, and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the  Official 
Journal of the European Union  (L series).EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/85  
( 1 ) The SARI application is a new central database application by which granting authorities in the Member State can 
directly encode their aid expenditure (Special Report No 15/2011, p. 60).