ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

Notes that, following the announcement of Caterpillar Belgium SA on 23 February 2013 of a collective redundancy procedure in its Gosselies plant, the majority of its 1 399 workers were the subject of EGF/2014/011 BE/Caterpillar application, and points out that the current application is a follow-up to that application, as it is part of the same redundancy procedure; underlines that Hainaut is facing a difficult labour market situation with an unemployment rate of 14,5 % (5,9 % higher than the national average), 1 236 job losses in 2013 and 1 878 in 2014 in the manufacturing sector, a drop in job offers of 13 % since 2012 and a high proportion of underqualified labour, as over half of the job seekers lack upper secondary qualifications, as well as high levels of long-term unemployment, which stands at 39,0 % of the overall unemployment in the Hainaut region;
5.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, the level of committed appropriations carried over under Title III (operational expenditure) was at 61 %, compared to 54 % in 2014; acknowledges that these carry-overs are mainly related to the nature of the Institute's activities, which involve procuring studies that span many months, often beyond year-end; notes that the carry-overs may often be partly or fully justified by the multiannual nature of the agencies' operational programmes or delayed decisions by the Presidency of the Council regarding the subject of studies, do not necessarily indicate weaknesses in budget planning and implementation and are not always at odds with the budgetary principle of annularity, in particular if they are planned in advance by the Institute and communicated to the Court;
5.

Notes that the level of committed appropriations carried over for Title III (operational expenditure) was at EUR 2 300 000 (45 % of expenditure), compared to EUR 4 700 000 (66 % of expenditure) in 2014; acknowledges that those carry-overs were predominantly related to specific contracts for the Authority's multi-annual IT programme supporting the implementation of Solvency II and to contracts signed late in the year; moreover acknowledges from the Authority that the carry-over appropriations were to be reduced to a satisfactory level from 2016 onwards with the advanced implementation of the Authority's IT Programme; notes that carry-overs may often be partly or fully justified by the multiannual nature of agencies' operational programmes, do not necessarily indicate weaknesses in budget planning and implementation and are not always at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality, in particular if they are planned in advance by the Authority and communicated to the Court;
5.

Notes that the Centre slightly increased the overall rate of committed appropriations carried over to the following year from 8,40 % in 2014 to 9,63 % in 2015, representing a 1,23 % rise; notes that the level of committed appropriations carried over for Title II (administrative expenditure) was at 29 %; observes that these carry-overs mainly concerned the refurbishment of additional premises rented in 2015 as well as IT services that had not yet been provided by the end of 2015; notes that carry-overs may often be partly or fully justified by the multiannual nature of the agencies' operational programmes, do not necessarily indicate weaknesses in budget planning and implementation and are not always at odds with the budgetary principle of annularity, in particular if they are planned in advance and communicated to the Court;
12.

Regrets to discover that one case of suspicion of fraud was submitted to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for assessment and the latter decided not to open an investigation; notes that the Joint Undertaking launched both a technical and a financial audit, and that the technical audit identified some scientific weaknesses in the work performed by a beneficiary, which resulted in the termination of participation of that beneficiary, with the corresponding costs disallowed and the amount of EUR 398 115,65 reimbursed to the project coordinator; notes that the financial audit of the project was concluded without any significant material findings; highlights in this respect the important role of whistle-blowers and internal auditing procedures in detecting, reporting, and investigating irregularities related to Union budgetary expenditure, and furthermore, to the recovery of the misused funds;
29.

Takes note of the annual expenditure of EUR 160 million devoted to the Union's delegation network, which represent more than a 50 % increase compared to the preceding financial year; notes that 80 % of the delegations are still rented, the rents amounting to EUR 53,04 million in 2015; welcomes the loan facility of EUR 200 million for better managing the building policy and reducing the purchasing costs of delegations; regrets that despite the loan facility and the increase in expenditure only a few delegation buildings are owned by the EEAS; calls on the EEAS to present not only the delegation building contracts of the current year but to provide also an overview of the situation of all delegation buildings in its annual activity report;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Decision (EU) 2017/344 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2017

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/9.)
3.

Recalls that over the last 10 years coal production in the Union and the global price of coal have fallen sharply, resulting in an increasing volume of coal imports from non-EU countries and many Union coal mines becoming unprofitable and being forced to close down; points out that those trends have been even more pronounced in Spain, leading to a reorganisation and reconversion of the coal mining sector; stresses that employment in the region of Castilla y León has been seriously affected by the impact of the crisis in the mining sector and points out that ten coal mining enterprises had to close in Castilla y León alone over the period 2010 to2016;
21.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, the 2015 external evaluation, delivered in May 2016, concluded that the Agency’s work and outputs respond to a need for network information security across the Union and within Member States and that the Agency effectively meets its stakeholders’ expectations; notes, however, that there is a need to improve communication between the Agency and its stakeholders, who find the Agency’s mandate and outreach too limited; notes from the Agency's reply that that the management board is discussing the future of the Agency and the best way to reach the Agency’s stakeholders as well as the way to enhance the outreach of the Agency within the available human and financial resources; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on the measures taken to improve the situation;
3.

Notes that, according to the current discharge procedure, the Committee submits annual activity reports to the Court in June, the Court then submits its report to Parliament in October, and the discharge is voted by Parliament in plenary by May; notes that, unless the discharge is postponed, at least 17 months pass between the closing of the annual accounts and the closing of the discharge procedure; points out that auditing in the private sector follows a much shorter timeline; stresses that the discharge procedure needs to be streamlined and sped up; requests that the Committee and the Court follow best practice in the private sector; proposes in this regard to set a deadline for the submission of the annual activity reports of 31 March of the year following the accounting year and a deadline for the submission of the Court’s report of 1 July; proposes also to review the timetable for the discharge procedure as set down in Article 5 of Annex IV to Parliament's Rules of Procedure so that the vote on the discharge would take place in Parliament’s plenary part-session in November, thereby closing the discharge procedure within the year following the accounting year in question;
7.

Notes that Council is still working on a reply to the European Ombudsman's strategic report on the ‘Transparency of the Council legislative process’ (OI/2/2017/TE), despite the fact that the European Ombudsman requested a reply to her recommendations and suggestions for improvements by 9 May 2018; acknowledges that Council is engaging in serious and thorough research in preparing its reply but nevertheless urges Council to respect the request of the Ombudsman; recalls that the European Ombudsman also sent her findings to Parliament and that two of its committees are currently working on a report on the findings for which reason Council is called upon to transmit its reply and findings to Parliament as soon as possible;
10.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, the Office launched an open procedure (five lots) in August 2016 to award a framework contract to cover its needs for cultural mediators/interpreters in different countries; notes moreover that the total amount of the framework contract for the four lots signed and audited (lots 2 to 5) was EUR 60 000 000 over four years; observes that those four lots were awarded to the same tenderer as first contractor-in-cascade; notes that that contractor met the financial requirements of the selection criteria (EUR 1 000 000 annual turnover) except for one of the three prior years for which an availment contract was signed with a non-profit organisation which committed to make its ‘turnover’ available to the contractor; recalls the fact that the Financial Regulation permits reliance on the financial and economic capacity of other entities; regrets, however, that in this case it is not clear how the ‘turnover’ of this entity could be made available or, given the nature of its activities, whether it could support the delivery of the services to be provided; considers that the Office should have rejected the offer as it did not demonstrate compliance with the tenderer’s economic and financial capacity requirements; considers the framework contract and all related payments irregular (no payments made in 2016);
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Latvia

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/1859.)
6.

Is aware of the decrease in production of the mining sector in Europe and the dramatic decline in EU-28 exports in that sector since 2014, the increase in the European steel price and the high production costs for machines resulting therefrom, in particular compared to China; regrets, however, that the Caterpillar Group has decided to allocate the volumes produced in the Gosselies plant to other production units in France (Grenoble) and to other plants outside Europe, including China and South Korea; which resulted in an abrupt shut down of the Gosselies site and the making redundant of 2 300 workers, plunging thousands of families into a social and human drama even though the Gosselies site was profitable, in particular following the investments made in previous years;
5.

Notes that the United Kingdom (UK) submitted its intention to withdraw from the Union, including Euratom; notes that from the withdrawal date, the UK will have sole responsibility for ensuring compliance with its international obligations arising from its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency and from various international treaties and conventions to which it is a party; observes in particular that the UK must establish its own nuclear safeguards regime and negotiate bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements with the various nations now covered by Euratom agreements; calls on the Agency to remain aware and up-to-date of the situation and report to the discharge authority of any developments in that regard;
11.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, there is a need to strengthen the accounting officer's independence by making him directly responsible to the Centre's Director and management board; notes that, according to the Centre's reply, in its view the current organisational setting has not affected the independence of the accounting officers; notes furthermore that the Centre is however ready to follow up on the recommendation of the Court;
10.

Considers that the protection of the EU’s external borders and internal security with the support of a strengthened European Border and Coast Guard and Europol, a European Union without internal borders, and the proper functioning of the Schengen area and freedom of movement within the EU, are inextricably linked and mutually beneficial; stresses, at the same time, the importance of robust EU investments in the area of internal security with a view to, among other things, enhancing EU law enforcement and judicial response to cross-border criminal threats and promoting information exchange, with enhanced support for Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; considers it an obligation to ensure adequate funding, staffing and staff training for all agencies operating in the field of security, justice and border control as the current level of funding is insufficient in view of the considerable increase in their responsibilities, the importance of cooperation among them, the need for technological innovations and adaptation, and their vital role in reinforcing cooperation and coordination among the Member States;
27.

Notes, following comments and observations from the discharge authority related to the fact that the Office is one of the few multi-location Union agencies and that the Office entered into lease contracts in several locations without having carried out an adequate local market analysis, that, as regards the office in Rome, a new tender will be shortly launched, preceded by a proper market analysis for renting an office in order to regularise the current situation; observes, moreover, in the case of the office in Athens, that the current rental contract ended in January 2020 and that a new procurement procedure is currently being prepared which includes a proper market analysis; notes, in addition, that the processing facility in Pagani (Lesvos) moved the operational working places located within the hotspots outside the centres; notes that, concerning Cyprus’ office, in mid-2018 a new contract was signed with the owner of the building following a tender aimed at regularising the initial agreement and including the possibility to expand if further needs arise; welcomes the new procurement standard operating procedures adopted on 15 February 2019 providing guidance on sensitive aspects of the procurement and contract management procedure, including detailed provisions on market surveys; notes the effort of the Office to align its procurement procedures with the ‘Methodology to be followed by the services of the Commission for prospecting and negotiating for buildings’ and publish market prospect notices for all envisaged building contracts in order to increase transparency and competition;
22.

Observes that the programme office performed a self-assessment of its ICSs to assess the current level of implementation of the ICSs and to explore the conditions necessary to move the internal control framework of the organisation to a higher degree of maturity; notes that the IAS made three recommendations in order to support and complement existing Joint Undertaking’s efforts in the field; observes that the programme office proposed the corresponding action plans and the IAS considered them adequate to mitigate the issues; however, notes with concern that the three standards considered were yet to be fully implemented at the beginning of 2018;
7.

Notes with alarm that in 2018 Participating States, which are required to contribute at least EUR 1 170 000 000 to Horizon 2020 operational activities of the Joint Undertaking, made commitments amounting to EUR 564 000 000 and payments of EUR 178 000 000, representing 15 % of the total required contributions; notes that the low level of the Participating States’ contributions is related to the fact that some Participating States only recognise and report their costs to the Joint Undertaking at the end of the Horizon 2020 projects that they support; notes that the implementation rate of the budget available for Horizon 2020 was 100 % for the commitment appropriations and 72 % for the payment appropriations, and that the rate of payment appropriation resulted in a lower amount due to the additional contribution of EUR 20 000 000 received in December 2018;
P9_TA(2020)0196

Mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2020: continuation of humanitarian support to refugees in Turkey

European Parliament resolution of 10 July 2020 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2020 to continue humanitarian support to refugees in Turkey (COM(2020)0422 — C9-0162/2020 — 2020/2094(BUD))

(2021/C 371/28)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0422 — C9-0162/2020),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (2), and in particular point 14 thereof,

— having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2020, as definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (3),

— having regard to Draft amending budget No 5/2020, which the Commission adopted on 3 June 2020 (COM(2020)0421),

— having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 5/2020 which the Council adopted on 24 June 2020 and forwarded to Parliament on the following day (09060/2020 — C9-0189/2020),

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A9-0125/2020),

A. whereas Article 13 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 has established a Contingency Margin of up to 0,03 % of the Gross National Income of the Union,

B. whereas the Commission has proposed, in connection to financing included in Draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget of the European Union for 2020, to mobilise the Contingency Margin to address the urgent need to provide humanitarian support to refugees in Turkey by increasing the commitment appropriations in the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2020, over and above the ceiling of heading 4 of the MFF,

1. Agrees to the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin for an amount of EUR 481 572 239 in commitment appropriations over and above the commitment ceiling of heading 4 ( Global Europe ) of the multiannual financial framework;

2. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

3. Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union ;

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

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

(2) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 57, 27.2.2020.
P9_TA(2020)0046

Draft amending budget No 2/2020: Providing emergency support to Member States and further reinforcement of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism/rescEU to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak

European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2020 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 2/2020 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 — Providing emergency support to Member States and further reinforcement of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism/rescEU to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak (07251/2020 — C9-0109/2020 –2020/2055(BUD))

(2021/C 316/08)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

— having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,

— having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

— having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2020, as definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (3),

— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (4),

— having regard to Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union (5),

— having regard to Draft amending budget No 2/2020, which the Commission adopted on 2 April 2020 (COM(2020)0170),

— having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 2/20200 which the Council adopted on 14 April 2020 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (07251/2020 — C9-0109/2020),

— having regard to Rules 94, 96 and 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

1. Approves the Council position on Draft amending budget No 2/2020;

2. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 2/2020 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union ;

3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

(1) OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 57, 27.2.2020.

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

(4) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 105.
27.

Notes that the Centre’s executive director, as authorising officer, has delegated the powers of budget implementation to the deputy director and heads of departments; notes that the deputy director’s delegation has no capped amount for transactions, while the delegation to the head of department for resources and support is capped at EUR 1 500 000 per transaction concerning Title 1 (Staff expenditure), with other delegations limited to the appropriations available under the specific budget lines and up to the ceiling of EUR 1 000 000 per transaction; welcomes the fact that the Centre sets financial caps for delegations in such a way that the need for flexibility is balanced with the need for oversight and hierarchical control over transactions;
21.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, for the procurement of furniture, accessories and related services, the terms used in the documents for the call for tender were not specific enough, undermining the competitive nature of the tendering procedure; notes, moreover, that the Agency did not sufficiently check the accuracy of underlying prices and the calculation of discounts applied for the non-standard items before submitting the order form to the contractor; calls on the Agency to ensure full compliance with the principles of competition law in all tendering procedures; notes that, according to the Agency’s reply, the tender documentation included the subject matter of the procurement and the applicable exclusion, selection and award criteria, thus allowing for competitiveness and notes that, with regard to the discount given by the contractor, the contractor had offered a higher discount than the standard rate included in the contract and the Agency thus acted in compliance with the principles of sound financial management, in line with the provisions of the contract; calls on the Agency to ensure that tendering specifications are comprehensive to allow fair and effective competition;