A4-0386/96

Resolution on Special Report No 2/96 of the Court of Auditors concerning the accounts of the Administrator and the European Union Administration, Mostar (EUAM), accompanied by the replies of the Commission and the Administrator of Mostar (C4-0513/96)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Special Report No 2/96 of the Court of Auditors concerning the accounts of the Administrator and the European Union Administration, Mostar (EUAM), accompanied by the replies of the Commission and the Administrator of Mostar (C4-0513/96) ((OJ C 287, 30.9.1996, p. 1.)),

- having regard to Articles 188c(4) and 206(1) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to its resolution of 26 October 1994 on the financing of the CFSP ((OJ C 323, 21.11.1994, p. 72.)),

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control on the ad hoc mission to Mostar, 26-29 March 1995 (PE 212.233),

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A4-0386/96),

A. whereas the restoration of peaceful multi-ethnic coexistence in Bosnia- Herzegovina is a lengthy and difficult process even with international help,

B. convinced that Mostar is of exceptional importance for peaceful coexistence not only in Bosnia-Herzegovina but in the whole of Europe,

C. whereas reconstruction in Mostar cannot be seen independently of the difficulties affecting the entire peace process in the former Yugoslavia,

D. whereas a sum totalling ECU 144 million has been made available for the European Union Administration, Mostar (EUAM), of which ECU 127 million came from the Community budget and the remainder was provided by direct contributions from the Member States,

E. regretting that it has not yet been possible to achieve the ambitious aim of a genuine political reunification of the town with a unified administration, a joint police force and full freedom of movement for its inhabitants,

F. convinced that the high level of personnel and financial resources devoted to Mostar was nevertheless justified because it has proved possible to end armed conflict more quickly than elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina and to embark on reconstruction and the restoration of normal economic life,

G. whereas the European Union Administration of Mostar was significant in setting the political direction because it demonstrated the European resolve, after a phase of humiliating quarrelling and paralysis, to take joint action in the face of the conflict in former Yugoslavia,

H. whereas, despite all the adverse circumstances, it has proved to be a politically sound decision to highlight the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) by means of a particularly prominent action led by an eminent figure,

I. whereas the work of the EU Administration was unnecessarily hampered by a whole series of omissions and shortcomings in preparations and in decision- making and administrative structures and in some ways it was only thanks to fortunate coincidences that it did not fail because of them,

J. regretting that, after the attacks on the Administrator in connection with his arbitration decision on the town's division into various zones, local Croatian politicians who had been responsible for the attacks on him were allowed to take part in negotiations in Rome, which finally led Mr Koschnick to hand in his resignation on 26 February 1996,

K. whereas Sir Martin Garrod as the special representative has been entrusted with the task of ensuring that the powers and responsibilities assumed by EU representatives are gradually handed over to the newly elected common municipal administration by the end of 1996,

L. whereas, on the basis of the special report of the Court of Auditors, it already appears necessary to draw a series of conclusions which are of significance not only for further action in Bosnia-Herzegovina but also for the future shape of the common foreign and security policy, including its financial and administrative aspects,

1. Welcomes the fact that, despite critical remarks on the details, the report of the Court of Auditors reaches a positive assessment of the European Union Administration of Mostar;

2. Thanks the members of the EUAM, and in particular the first EU administrator Mr Hans Koschnick, for their untiring and courageous work and their great personal commitment;

3. Regrets that Mr Koschnick did not always receive the full and unreserved political backing of the Council Presidency and EU Foreign Ministers;

4. Notes that the Council omitted to provide lasting and effective structures to supervise the joint action and that the Council Presidency, rotating every six months, and the advisory working party comprising Member State representatives set up to support the Presidency were clearly not capable of performing the task of supervising the joint action entrusted to them by the Council;

5. Notes that the Council failed to provide the EU Administrator with the police back-up essential for the effective implementation of his decisions;

6. Regrets that the Council did not give the Administrator a say in the selection of the Administration's management team and that the wish to ensure the proportional distribution of posts among the Member States led to the EUAM having a complicated organizational structure;

7. Regrets that the Council has persisted in making appropriations available in tranches, although it had been agreed with the Spanish Presidency that this practice would be abandoned, and calls on the Council to respect this agreement in future in order to avoid unnecessary delay and complicated administrative procedures which are difficult to monitor;

8. Notes the failure to make provision from the start for a unified financial procedure with an integrated system of financial accounting and budgetary reporting and to make a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff available, which led to a whole series of shortcomings in financial management in the initial phase which fortunately did not have a lasting adverse impact on the effectiveness of the EUAM;

9. Considers that the report of the Court of Auditors confirms its view that there is currently a gap in the Treaties in the area of the CFSP which has led to the demarcation of powers between the Council and Commission becoming dangerously unclear and which also has an adverse effect on Parliament's right to call the Commission to account without restriction under the discharge procedure;

10. Considers that the report of the Court of Auditors confirms its view that an interinstitutional agreement is required to ensure that Parliament is properly involved in the common foreign and security policy;

11. Demands that joint actions of this type should in future be supervised and monitored by the European Commission without restriction in order to guarantee continuity and effectiveness;

12. Considers itself justified in demanding that joint actions should in future be financed from the Community budget from the outset, whereby the financial provisions laid down by the Treaty should be applied without restriction and the Financial Regulation should be respected;

13. Urges the Member States to learn from the experience gained from the joint action in Mostar and recommends the Member States to create a CFSP staff reserve which can be mobilized at short notice for joint actions and to set up a preparatory group led by the Commission which would draw up procedures on the basis of previous experience of joint actions under which such actions, once decided, could be launched and implemented as quickly and smoothly as possible from the organizational and financial point of view;

14. Calls on the Commission to make use of its rights under Article J.8(3) of the EU Treaty and draw up proposals for new joint actions in former Yugoslavia; these might, for example, concern the return of refugees or the building-up of and support for independent media;

15. Calls on the Council Presidency to submit a report on the joint action in Mostar to Parliament and to comment on the special report of the Court of Auditors;

16. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of the WEU and the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding on the European Union Administration of Mostar.