ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Acknowledges from the Agency that: — for the 2012 financial year, the Court of Auditors already noted satisfactory rates of the implementation of payment appropriations for Titles I and II (98 % and 89 %, respectively); acknowledges that for Title III, the rate of payment implementation of 49 % was justified and carry forwards of this level are unavoidable and are not the result of delays in the planning and implementation of the Agency’s annual work programme, — in May 2013, the Executive Board of the Agency adopted a decision (Decision 2013/01) on the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures, and in conclusion the Agency complied with Parliament’s request by adopting this decision in agreement with the Commission, to adopt rules in order to respect the legitimate interest (including anonymity) of the parties, — the European Anti-Fraud Office investigation, which was opened in 2012, was closed without recommendations in 2013, while the European Ombudsman case (0917/2011) is still open, — the Agency implements an elaborate anti-harassment policy; is satisfied that all allegations of harassment have been carefully examined and that no cases of harassment were identified, — the Agency currently applies the Commission’s guidelines following a decision of the Executive Board (Decision 2012/04); notes that these guidelines will be replaced as soon as the Agency adopts the Regulatory Agencies’ model guidelines on whistleblowing, — declarations of interest and CVs of management team and most of full members of the Management Board are uploaded on the Agency’s website;
A.

Whereas the implementation of the MFF 2014-2020 started with a huge backlog in payments, with unpaid bills amounting to some EUR 23,4 billion at the end of 2013 for Cohesion policy only, and a level of outstanding commitments (RAL) reaching EUR 221,7 billion at the same date, i.e. EUR 41 billion above what was originally foreseen when the MFF 2007-2013 was agreed; whereas this situation is unacceptable and requires urgent measures, having recourse to the flexibility mechanisms included in the MFF Regulation, with a view to not jeopardising the delivery of Union policies and programmes, as unanimously agreed in the MFF, but also to limiting the claims for interest on late payments and avoiding unduly increasing the economic exposure and vulnerability of beneficiaries of the Union budget;
14.

Points out the fact that the EGF will provide ‘training wage’ allowances amounting to 150 % of the Spanish minimum wage; welcomes however the confirmation of the Commission that those allowances do not substitute the unemployment benefits and will be provided in addition to the unemployment benefits paid out under the national legislation; stresses in this context that the new EGF regulation for 2014-2020 will limit the inclusion of financial allowances in the package to a maximum of 35 % of the cost of the measures and that accordingly the rate of allowances within the coordinated package for this demand will not repeat under this new regulation;
5.

Endorses the Joint conclusions agreed by the Parliament and the Council on 8 December 2014 with the view to approve DAB No 4/2014 as originally proposed by the Commission, and amended by Amending letter No 1 to DAB No 4/2014, with the inclusions of the commitment appropriations from DAB No 6/2014 related to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the reserve for the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements, as well as the redeployment of the amount of EUR 248 460 of available payment appropriations identified in the line for the EDPS to the Humanitarian aid budget line 23 02 01;
9.

Observes that that policy imposes the obligation to publish only the declarations of interests of the members of the Administrative Board, the Executive Director and the Heads of Unit but not their CVs, whose publication is made on a voluntary basis; notes from the Agency that that obligation does not apply to the members of its Advisory Board, whose independence should also be ensured; calls on the Agency to revise that policy and publish the CVs of the Executive Director, Heads of Units and members of the Administrative Board on a mandatory basis; calls on the Agency to publish also the CVs and declarations of interests of the members of the Advisory Board in order to contribute to bigger transparency;
1.

Notes from the Court's report that regarding two comments made in the Court's 2011 report and marked as ‘Ongoing’ or ‘Outstanding’ in the Court's 2012 report, corrective actions were taken and the two comments are now marked in the Court's report as ‘Completed’; notes furthermore that regarding the two comments made in the Court's 2012 report, one corrective action was taken and the related comment is now marked as ‘Completed’ while one is now marked as ‘Ongoing’;
5.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that it made progress in implementing the action plan aimed at remedying the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion; notes that the assurances provided by the national systems were positively assessed for countries representing 54 % of the total grants, while the assessments for further countries are in an advanced phase of execution which will bring the assessed grant coverage to 84 %; calls on the Joint Undertaking to continue the assessment in order to reach 100 % coverage of the total grants;
5.

Regrets in general a tendency in Council not to honour its commitments to countries which have gone through a major disaster, thereby fulfilling the conditions for the mobilisation of the EUSF, by not mobilising additional resources as provided for by the special instruments, but rather by taking money away from other programmes; welcomes however the fact that the Council did not follow this approach for Draft amending budget No 4/2015;
11.

Ascertains from the Centre that all recommendations relating to the 2008 audit of the IAS have been closed; notes that two recommendations arising from the 2011 IAS audit have not been formally closed, as their implementation is at an advanced stage at the Centre; notes furthermore that the 2013 IAS audit on budget monitoring produced three main recommendations, with two already implemented while the recommendation on the budget preparation process was scheduled to be completed in 2015;
13.

Urges the EEAS to revise the staffing formula establishing the balance between staff drawn from Member States and from the Union institutions; insists on the fact that such formula should apply to all levels of the hierarchy, in particular to heads of delegation where Member States' diplomats are strongly overrepresented, with 59 of the 128 heads of delegation coming from Member States (i.e. 46 %) out of which only 20 from Member States which joined the Union in 2004, 2007 and 2013; considers this overrepresentation to be a wrong signal sent to Member States which joined the Union since 2004; is of the opinion that a better balance between the Member States and the Union institutions, and also amongst the Member States, is necessary in order to represent and reflect the diversity within the Union;
12.

Considers the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), in particular, to be a fundamental contribution to the Union’s priority objective for jobs and growth; reiterates its commitment to continued funding for this programme with a view to scaling it up and thereby offering a greater number of young people, including young migrants entering the EU, the prospect of effectively entering the labour market by receiving a good quality offer of employment, continued education or apprenticeship; regrets that during the negotiations on the EU budget for 2016 no new commitments were allocated to further finance the YEI, while youth unemployment remains at its highest rates in the EU; recalls that this objective must be considered together with the need to promote mobility among young people, as supported by the Erasmus+ programme; highlights the importance of the joint statement of the three institutions (Parliament, the Council and the Commission) on the budget for 2016 that states that ‘reducing youth unemployment remains a high and shared political priority’, and that to this end the three institutions ‘reaffirm their determination to make the best possible use of budgetary resources available to tackle it, and in particular the Youth Employment Initiative’; notes that despite the initial delays in the implementation of this initiative and the continuing procrastination in designating authorities for YEI operational programmes in many Member States, the current implementation figures indicate a full absorption capacity; calls on the Commission to present its evaluation of the YEI at the latest by the end of April 2016, and at all events in time for the inclusion of a prolongation of the programme in the EU budget for 2017; stresses that a permanent solution for the funding of YEI through new commitment appropriations up to 2020 will be part of the mid-term revision of the MFF; underlines, in this context, the importance of the provision of the European Global Adjustment Fund (EGF) concerning support for young people aged up to 25 who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs), in equal numbers to workers receiving support in regions with high youth unemployment;
1.

Notes from the Court's report that regarding two comments made in the Court's 2011 report and marked as ‘Outstanding’ in the Court’s 2012 report and as ‘Ongoing’ in the Court’s 2013 report, corrective actions have been taken and the comments are now marked in the Court’s report as ‘Completed’; notes furthermore that regarding three comments made in the Court’s 2012 report and marked as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Ongoing’ in the Court’s 2013 report, corrective actions have been taken and two comments are now marked in the Court’s report as ‘Completed’ while one is marked as ‘Ongoing’; notes that for the three notes made in the Court’s 2013 report, two are marked in the Court’s report as ‘Ongoing’ while one as ‘Not applicable’;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 224/208

P8_TA(2016)0467

Mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2016

European Parliament resolution of 1 December 2016 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2016 (COM(2016)0624 — C8-0399/2016 — 2016/2256(BUD))

(2018/C 224/46)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0624 — C8-0399/2016),

— 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 2016, as definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (3),

— having regard to Draft amending budget No 4/2016, which the Commission proposed on 30 September 2016 (COM(2016)0623),

— having regard to the position adopted by the Council on 8 November 2016 on Draft amending budget No 4/2016 (13583/2016 — C8-0459/2016),

— having regard to its position on Draft amending budget No 4/2016, adopted on 1 December 2016 (4),

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0347/2016),

A. whereas the Commission proposed, together with Draft amending budget No 4/2016, to mobilise the Contingency Margin for 2016 for an amount of EUR 240,1 million so as to complement the commitment appropriations related to expenditure in heading 3 ‘Security and citizenship’ in the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016;

1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2. 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 ;

3. 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 48, 24.2.2016, p. 1.

(4) Texts Adopted, P8_TA(2016)0468.
7.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, the Office underestimated its needs for the professional event organisation services; observes that the four-year framework contract, which was signed in 2013, reached its maximum amount in December 2014; notes that the Office's underestimate stemmed from unexpected changes in the organisation of its final plenary meeting for 2014; is of the opinion that the Office should establish a modus operandi with its members and observers for those meetings in order to prevent such a situation from recurring; points out that a procurement procedure to sign a new framework contract was launched in August 2015, and that the Office in the meantime continued to procure these services using purchase orders and low-value contracts (negotiated procedures); agrees with the Court that an open procurement procedure should have been used, in which all interested economic partners are entitled to submit a tender; notes that in 2016 the Office revised its existing procurement rules with a view to streamlining the process, including by using eTendering; welcomes the fact that the Office has already taken steps to improve its procurement rules and has launched an open tender procedure which resulted in the conclusion of a multiple framework contract in cascade with three companies from January 2016;
6.

Notes that the Joint Undertaking conducted an extensive assessment of the national assurance systems and concluded that the audit reports can provide reasonable protection of the financial interests of its members; notes, furthermore, that, as a reaction to the postponement of the discharge decision in 2014, the Joint Undertaking asked the NFAs to provide written declarations that the implementation of their national procedures provided for a reasonable assurance of the legality and regularity of transactions; the discharge authority took the declarations of the NFAs into account during the postponed discharge process and granted discharge to the Joint Undertaking in October 2016; recognises that the Joint Undertaking, following its good example from the previous year, asked the NFAs in January 2017 to provide similar written declarations to submit to the discharge authority;
6.

Acknowledges that the Ombudsman is a frontrunner in transparency among the Union institutions; calls, nevertheless, for further improvement of the transparency of recruitment conditions and processes; asks the Ombudsman to indicate the principal adviser's tasks and to clarify his or her position in the organisational chart; in light of the changes before adoption of the organisational structure of the institution in November 2015, asks the Ombudsman to ensure that an updated version of its organisational chart is available on its website;
29.

Underlines that the predictability and long-term sustainability of the EU budget is a prerequisite for a strong and stable European Union; stresses the need to align the duration of the MFF with the political cycles of both Parliament and the Commission; draws attention to the fact that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will provide an opportunity to address the long-standing issues which have prevented the EU budget from reaching its real potential, especially as regards the revenue side, in order to phase out all rebates and correction mechanisms; reaffirms its position in favour of an in-depth reform of EU own resources, and welcomes in this respect the presentation of the final report of the High-Level Group on Own Resources (HLGOR); invites all involved parties to draw the appropriate conclusions from this report and to analyse the feasibility of implementing the recommendations of the HLGOR that would help make the EU budget more stable, simple, autonomous, fair and predictable; expects that any new own resources should lead to a reduction in Member States’ GNI contributions; welcomes the conclusion of the HLGOR regarding the fact that the EU budget needs to focus on areas bringing the highest European added value and regarding the ‘juste retour’ approach, which should end, as it has been shown by the report that all Member States benefit from the EU budget, irrespective of their ‘net balance’;
16.

Notes that the Agency has not implemented specific rules in relation to whistleblowers in addition to what is provided for in the Staff Regulations; calls on the Agency to adopt an internal whistleblowing policy in order to foster a culture of transparency and accountability in the workplace, to inform and train employees regularly of their duties and rights with regard to that policy, to ensure the protection of whistleblowers from reprisal, to follow up on the substance of whistleblowers' alerts in a timely manner, and to put in place a procedure for anonymous internal reporting; calls on the Agency to publish annual reports on the number of whistleblower cases and on how they were followed up and to provide those annual reports to the discharge authority; acknowledges that the Agency has informed staff about its whistleblowing rules; asks the Agency to report to the discharge authority when its whistleblowing rules have been established and implemented;
P8_TA(2017)0454

Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide for the payment of advances in the general budget 2018

European Parliament resolution of 30 November 2017 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide for the payment of advances in the general budget of the Union for 2018 (COM(2017)0270 — C8-0161/2017 — 2017/2076(BUD))

(2018/C 356/36)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0270 — C8-0161/2017),

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

— having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (3), and in particular point 11 thereof,

— having regard to the results of the trilogue of 17 November 2017,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0371/2017),

A. whereas, in line with Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), an amount of EUR 50 000 000 is made available for the payment of advances through appropriations in the general budget of the Union;

1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2. 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 ;

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

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

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

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

(4) Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 143).
24.

Recalls with concern from the Court’s report that in 2014 the Commission signed, on behalf of more than 50 Union institutions and bodies (including the Agency), a framework contract (FWC) with one contractor for the acquisition of software, licences and the provision of related IT maintenance and consultancy services; notes that the framework contractor acts as an intermediary between the Agency and suppliers and that for these intermediary services the framework contractor is entitled to uplifts of two to nine per cent of the suppliers’ prices; notes moreover that the FWC explicitly stipulates that it does not confer any exclusive right to the contractor; observes that, in 2016, the Agency used this FWC to purchase software licences for a total of EUR 442 754; notes that most of those purchases were for products belonging to a particular category that should only be used on an exceptional basis, for which prices were not quoted during the tender process or in the FWC; acknowledges the fact that the Court’s report indicates that this procedure does not ensure sufficient competition or the application of the most economical solution; acknowledges moreover the fact that the uplifts charged by the framework contractor were not adequately checked: the largest order concerned the renewal of software licences provided by an exclusive Scandinavian reseller (EUR 112 248); expresses its concern that in this instance, there was no justification for the use of the FWC which resulted in an unnecessary uplift cost; notes the Agency’s reply to the comment from the Court;
3.

Welcomes that the Ombudsman submitted its annual activity report to the Court in March; notes that the Court submitted its report to Parliament in October and that the discharge is to be voted on in plenary by Parliament by May; notes that by the time discharge is closed, if not postponed, at least 17 months have passed since the closing of the annual accounts; 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 Ombudsman follow the good example given by the private sector and proposes to set a deadline for the submission of the annual activity reports on 31 March of the following year, a deadline for the submission of the Court’s reports on the 1st of July and subsequently vote on the discharge by Parliament in the plenary session of November, thereby closing the discharge procedure within the year following the accounting year in question;
4.

Points out that, according to the Court’s report, the Institute launched an open call for tender for a framework contract on the maintenance and update of its gender statistics tools and resources for a maximum amount of EUR 1 600 000 in 2016; highlights moreover that the call was split into two lots without indicating the respective amounts per lot; highlights that, following a question from one tenderer, the Institute clarified on its website that the maximum amount per lot was estimated at EUR 800 000; observes that, according to the Institute, it was an administrative error due to which the amount specified was not amended accordingly and that it had no budget implication; notes furthermore, with regret, that, according to the Court’s report, price competition in the call for tender was based on daily rates only and not also on the time needed to complete the tasks, which did not allow the Institute to identify and choose the most economically advantageous offers and did not ensure the best value for money; notes that, according to the Institute, it has amended the relevant templates of technical specifications and will mitigate the risk by putting a maximum number of working days in future requests for specific services;