ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
19.

Regrets the Commission’s proposal for the funding of the second tranche of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT) and the subsequent agreement reached between Member States in the Council on 29 June 2018; supports the continuation of the FRT, but maintains that, as also proposed by the Commission on 14 March 2018, the EU budget should contribute to its financing to the sum of EUR 1 billion, with Member States contributing EUR 2 billion by means of bilateral contributions, in order to leave sufficient margins under the MFF special instruments for unforeseen events in the last two years of the current MFF, as well as the financing of other priorities; also maintains that as the FRT has been a new initiative within this MFF, it should be funded by fresh appropriations; regrets that, despite Parliament's clear request to be fully associated with the decision-making process relating to the extension of the FRT, inter alia to avoid the repetition of the procedure of its setting-up, no negotiations on the financing of the second tranche of the FRT have so far taken place between Parliament and the Council; informs Member States that Parliament has every right to assume its role as an arm of the budgetary authority of the Union and that it will do so, as already announced on previous occasions;
17.

Notes that in 2017, the FCH2 finalised implementation of all action plans addressing recommendations on internal audit service (IAS) audits on the performance management undertaken by the IAS in 2016, with an exception of one action; notes that in 2017, the IAS undertook a new audit on coordination with the Commission's Central Support Centre and implementation of its tools and services in the FCH2; notes, moreover, that on 7 December 2017, the FCH2 received a final audit report from the IAS on this audit, which resulted in three recommendations; welcomes the fact that the FCH2 agreed with all the recommendations and sent an action plan to IAS on 15 January 2018, which was subsequently agreed by the IAS in January 2018;
12.

Notes that in 2017 the Joint Undertaking proceeded with the financial and administrative closure of SESAR 1; takes note that in 2017 SESAR 1 received EUR 37 million from the Union in order to cover the outstanding obligations towards the members of the Joint Undertaking resulting from the assessment of the final financial statements, received and reviewed in 2017 and also to cover the provision of probable additional audits, potential legal actions against the Joint Undertaking and the reimbursement of surplus cash contributions of its members; also notes that EUR 25,9 million was validated as cash contribution from Eurocontrol, of which EUR 13,4 million is from 2016, but is part of 2017 budget due to technical issues, and EUR 12,5 million for 2017; notes that the Joint Undertaking received EUR 16,8 million as exceptional revenues, mainly composed of recoveries related to members; welcomes the fact that the remaining cash surplus of EUR 23,1 million and payment appropriations of EUR 38,6 million are sufficient to meet all obligations and to close SESAR 1;
19.

Notes that the Commission's Internal Audit Service finalised the Audit on Monitoring of Grant Agreements concluding that the framework is adequate but the implementation should be improved; regrets that the reviews of the KICs by the Institute were not based on their annual reports, and that the Institute did not cover systematically some risks, that it did not address all governance requirements in detail and that it did not provide feedback on good governance to the second wave of KICs; points out furthermore that although it is stated in the 2016 Work Programme, the Institute did not issue a report on good governance of KICs;
12.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, the Agency signed a framework contract regarding the exploitation of the Galileo satellite system for 2017 to 2027 on 15 December 2016, amounting to EUR 1 500 000 000; notes moreover that the contract was awarded following a public procurement procedure; points out that one of the tenderers involved has launched legal proceedings, challenging the outcome of the procurement procedure; notes that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union will rule on the legality and regularity of the procurement procedure for the framework contract and all related specific contracts and future payments; points out that the Agency disclosed and explained the matter in the financial statements 2017, together with the information that EUR 49 000 000 (7 % of the 2017 budget including amounts received through delegation agreements) were paid under the framework contract in 2017; calls on the Agency to prepare to mitigate any financial or operational risks that may occur, and report to the discharge authority on the developments in the process;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Austria, Italy and Romania

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2019/1817).
7.

Calls on the Commission to conduct a feasibility study in order to assess the possibility of merging the Foundation with Cedefop; underlines that the Foundation and Cedefop have a very similar field of operation and that such a merger would simplify the funding of the two Agencies, as well as clarify the system of Union agencies in the eyes of the public; calls on the Commission to consider at least setting up shared synergies with Cedefop; calls upon the Commission to evaluate the following alternatives: the transfer of the Foundation to the headquarters of Cedefop in Thessaloniki and the transfer of Cedefop transfer to the headquarters of the Foundation in Loughlinstown; notes that this would mean sharing corporate and support services and the management of the common premises, as well as shared ICT, telecommunications and internet-based infrastructures, saving large amounts of money which would be used on further funding of both agencies;
20.

Notes that, in 2018, the Internal Audit Service (IAS) carried out an audit on the Coordination with the Common Support Centre (CSC) in order to assess the adequacy of the design of the Joint Undertaking governance, risk management and internal processes; notes with satisfaction that the IAS identified as a strength the active role of the Joint Undertaking in exchanging information with the CSC; moreover, notes that the auditors took note of the joint approaches of the Directors, setting out their needs in respect of important subjects, such as confidentiality; furthermore, several recommendations have been issued to the IAS to further adapt the IT systems of the Commission to remove the remaining constraints to the data transfer; calls on the Joint Undertaking to finalise the development of criteria and procedures for handling confidential data of the Joint Undertaking’s beneficiaries;
19.

Notes with concern the Court’s finding that, in 2018, the IMI2 Joint Undertaking’s staff turnover rate was high at an average of 21 %, and particularly high at 60 % for contract agents, and the situation worsened due to eight people being on long-term sick leave of whom four were new cases in 2018, thus only half of the IMI2 Joint Undertaking’s staff was fit for service in 2018, which increased the risk that the IMI2 Joint Undertaking’s operational objectives would not be achieved as planned; notes that, to resolve the staffing difficulties, the IMI2 Joint Undertaking made use of interim staff, who represented 9,8% of its total staff in 2018 and has invested resources in retaining its talents through training and wellbeing activities on one side, and in reaching full staffing on the other; expresses concern about the number of members of staff on long-term sick leave and is concerned that some of those cases may relate to exhaustion and an unsatisfactory work-life balance; calls on the IMI2 Joint Undertaking to be proactive towards the staff concerned, to carefully evaluate the staff workload and to ensure a balanced distribution of tasks;
22.

Notes with concern that, according to the Court’s report, for the procurement of data analytics services for a volume of up to EUR 5 000 000, the Agency chose to use a framework contract with a single operator resulting from an open procedure published in the Official Journal of the European Union ; notes, however, that the terms used in the framework contract were not specific enough to allow a fair competition, because the requirements were not yet known at the time of the procurements procedure; recalls that, according to the Financial Regulation, in such circumstances, the contracting authority has to award a framework contract to multiple operators and a competitive procedure between the selected contractors has to be used for the specific purchases; takes notes on the Agency’s reply that it chose a single framework contract rather than a multiple framework contract which would have resulted in a change of contractor during the lifetime of the framework contract and would have had severe consequences for its coherence and timely completion; calls on the Agency to design framework contracts which allow fair competition and ensure value for money;
19.

Stresses that small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) make up 99 % of all companies in the Member States and contribute significantly to the creation of jobs, economic stability and, increasingly, to sustainability efforts, and that these companies are most likely to be the most affected by the economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak; stresses that SMEs face difficulties in finding financing opportunities and recalls the role of the EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME) in this regard; recalls Parliament’s position on doubling the financial envelope of its successor’s lines within the Single Market programme for the next MFF, which is expected to allow for a success rate of high-quality proposals of at least 80 %; stresses that financial support for SMEs should also be channelled through the InvestEU SMEs window, to make products and services market ready and enable their rapid scaling up on global markets; reiterates the need to further expand opportunities to create and scale up start-ups and to put special emphasis on the digital transformation of SMEs, also supported by the Single Market Gateway as an e-government business facilitator, in compliance with ambitious consumer protection policies, as well as their ecological transition; welcomes, furthermore, in this context, the various initiatives from the European Investment Bank (EIB) group, namely the mobilisation of EUR 40 billion for impacted SMEs, the EUR 5 billion available for companies in the health sector and the EUR 25 billion guarantee fund to be financed by its shareholders;
9.

Notes the scheduled preparatory work for the next external evaluation; notes that, due to the fact that the first evaluation’s recommendations are still being implemented and the relative small size of the Institute, the Institute’s board deferred the second external evaluation from 2020 to 2022 and decided on carrying out an evaluation every seven years; calls on the Institute to report on the developments on the postponed external evaluation and on the decision to steer away from the Commission prescription in the Common Approach to carry out an evaluation every five years; notes that the Commission has considered the postponed evaluation as duly justified;
2.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, carry-overs of committed appropriations were high for operating expenditure, reflecting the nature of the Agency’s activities, which include financing studies that span several months and often beyond year-end; notes that, according to the Court’s report, the Agency has aimed to improve planning procedures to better monitor delays between the signing of contracts, deliveries and payments; notes that, according to the Court’s report, 28 % of Title III carry-overs to 2020 were committed in December 2019, as were the payment carry-overs from 2018; notes that, according to the Agency’s reply, the second management board meeting is held in December and that its core activities require time to be completed and projects might be requested from Union institutions any time of the year; notes that, according to the Agency’s reply, the Agency started the development of a new monitoring software application, which will improve the monitoring of budget planning; notes that, according to the Court’s report, this finding is indicative of a structural issue and calls on the Agency to improve its budget planning and its implementation cycle and report to the discharge authority on the actions taken;
11.

Notes from the Court’s report that the large increase in the Institute’s budget and the growing number of KICs had not been accompanied by an increase in the number of posts; notes from the Court’s report that the Institute’s budget will increase by a further EUR 600 000 000, or 25 %, under the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), compared to the current MFF, while the number of staff remains capped at 70; further notes from the Court’s report that there is a risk that the Institute will not have sufficient capacity to deal with its increased workload in the future, and that this risk has increased further, instead of being mitigated;
24.

Shares with concern the Court’s observation that to compensate for a shortage of posts the Authority relies increasingly on consultants and interim staff, which may pose risks of inadequate supervision of complex work by external contractors and of contractual litigation issues because of blurred responsibilities; notes, as follow-up from previous years’ Court findings, that the Authority uses contracts with IT companies that are formulated in a way that could imply the assignment of interim workers instead of the provision of clearly defined IT services or products; notes that the use of IT service contracts for the provision of labour would not be compliant with the Union social and employment rules and would expose the Authority to legal and reputational risks; notes that, according to the Authority’s reply, any potential risks in this context were limited and it has adopted all necessary procedures to avoid any possible confusion between the procurement of IT services and the assignment of interim workers in the contracts; urges the Authority to ensure that contracts avoid any confusion between the procurement of services and that of interim workers;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Estonia — EGF/2020/002 EE/Estonia Tourism

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2021/886.)
5.

Notes, regarding the follow-up to observations from the 2019 discharge report concerning dissatisfaction with the delivery of some of the Agency’s activities, that the Agency has taken on additional new tasks such as the European Green Deal, the 8th Environmental Action Programme and Sustainable Finance, which have not been accompanied by sufficient resources and staff to meet the ambitions laid down in its legislation; notes that the Agency directly supported the implementation of the European Green Deal and the 2030 policy framework on climate and energy through several activities and collaboration with the Commission; further notes that the Agency has allocated operational staff only to deliver these activities, which increasingly stresses its support functions; calls on the Agency to enter into discussion with the Commission, where appropriate through the EU Agencies Network, to address these issues and to report to the discharge authority on the developments in this regard;
5.

Notes that the Foundation stepped up its collaboration and cooperation with key stakeholders in 2020 and more than 10 webinars were organised with partners such as the Commission, Parliament, the International Labour Organization and Union agencies; notes that the Foundation has an ongoing collaboration with the European Labour Authority (ELA); notes that in 2020 the Foundation and Cedefop continued to cooperate on the European company survey, jointly conducted in 2018/2019, and that the dissemination of activities was organised jointly with the Institute of Labour Economics (IZA); notes that the Foundation is a key data provider for the European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Equality Index and a regular exchange of information takes place with the European Agency for Safety and Health at work; notes, in addition, that the Foundation is seeking to establish a memorandum of understanding with the ELA and the European Environment Agency (EEA); welcomes the cooperation and sharing of knowledge of the Foundation as an example worth following for other agencies and bodies; notes that this collaboration promotes the creation of synergies and helps to avoid overlaps;
6.

Notes that in its report the Court draws attention to the fact that the founding regulations of the predecessors of the Joint Undertaking, ARTEMIS and ENIAC, provided that their operational research and innovation activities under the Seventh Framework programme are supported through financial contributions from Participating States, of at least 1,8 times the Union’s operational financial contribution, to be paid to project participants, and through in-kind contributions from private members, of at least the contribution amount of public members; notes with regret that neither the Joint Undertaking’s 2020 provisional annual accounts nor its 2020 budgetary and financial management report disclose the following estimates of neither the financial contributions of Participating States to the Seventh Framework programme projects of ARTEMIS and ENIAC nor the in-kind contributions made by research and development organisations participating in Seventh Framework programme projects of ARTEMIS and ENIAC; notes the Joint Undertaking’s reply that contrary to Horizon 2020, Seventh Framework programme regulations for its predecessors never foresaw or required such reporting and that at the time of ARTEMIS and ENIAC, after discussions with DG BUDG, it was decided, inter alia, not to include this information in the annual accounts; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;
5.

Is deeply concerned that the MFF is already pushed to its limits and is not fit to continue addressing the multiple internal and external crises in a sustainable manner; points, in particular, to the need to increase the ceiling of Heading 4 in order to reflect the actual financial needs for the Union’s migration and border management; calls, therefore, on the Commission to conduct an in-depth review of the functioning of the current MFF and proceed with a legislative proposal for a comprehensive revision of the MFF as soon as possible and not later than the first quarter of 2023; expects such a revision to take into account the long-term implications of the war in Ukraine and the emergency measures taken;
RESOLUTION on measures to combat drugs-taking

The European Parliament,

A. whereas, despite all the measures taken so far at international, Community and national level, the illegal importation, trafficking and abuse of drugs and the adverse effects of drug abuse are steadily increasing in an alarming manner in the European Community,

B. having regard to the positions already adopted by the European Parliament on this matter and the minimal follow-up they have received,

C. recalling the setting up in the European Parliament of a Committee of Inquiry into drug problems and calling for it to begin its work urgently,

D. having regard to the social importance of this problem, particularly for young people,

1. Considers that it is within the European Community's sphere of responsibility to take appropriate measures to combat the illegal importation, trafficking and abuse of drugs in the Member States;

2. Calls on the Council to take concrete measures as a matter of urgency to increase the European Community's role in combating drug addiction;

3. Calls on the Council and the Member States to ensure that these efforts are focused on increasing measures to detect drug trafficking networks at Community frontiers, on the dismantling of these networks by stepping up measures against traffickers, and on the provision of more information for groups at risk, particularly young people, in a concerted manner through the institutions and bodies responsible for education, health and social affairs in the Member States;

4. Calls on the Commission to study the link between drug abuse and the distress caused by unemployment and the lack of prospects for the future;

5. Calls on the Commission to provide a complete picture of all the facts and statistics on drug abuse and to ensure that information is properly coordinated between the Member States;

6. Calls on the Commission to report at regular intervals to the European Parliament on the situation with regard to the measures to combat drug addiction in the European Community, especially preventive measures;

7. Calls on the Commission of the European Communities to carry out a study on the possibilities of treating drug addicts (withdrawal) and rehabilitating patients cured in the European Community;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States.
RESOLUTION on the implementation of Parliament's resolutions on the fight against drug abuse

The European Parliament,

A. dismayed at the continual loss of human life, especially amongst young people, as a result of drug taking,

B. having regard also to all the effects it has on health, the social and economic consequences and the repercussions for the family and society,

C. judging the feeble measures taken at Community level to be totally inadequate, especially when measured against the severity and extent of the problem,

1. Calls on the Commission to submitt, as a matter of urgency, consistent proposals as part of a multi-pronged action programme with particular emphasis on

(a) prevention through information, health education and advice on lifestyles, especially for young people;

(b) surveillance, organized jointly by the Member States, to check the spread of new products such as crack;

(c) an awareness of trends in drug taking, (e.g. 'Saturday night drugs');

(d) economic and social measures to create jobs;

(e) the humanization of city centres;

(f) a leisure policy specially aimed at young people;

2. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments of the Member States and the international organizations involved in the fight against drug abuse.