ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
18.

Requests that the institutions involved make the necessary efforts to improve procedural arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for the accelerated release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;
B.

whereas the Commission has proposed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to complement the financing in the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, beyond the ceiling of heading 1b, of EUR 78 million towards the financing of the Cypriot Structural Funds programmes to grant an additional allocation from the Structural Funds to Cyprus for the year 2014 by a total amount of EUR 100 000 000,
8.

Acknowledges from the Foundation that since 2011, the Foundation has established a system of monitoring and reporting potential conflicts of interest of members of the Governing Board and the relevant forms are published on the Foundation’s website; acknowledges, furthermore, that the Foundation’s Governing Board discussed a comprehensive strategy on the detection and management of conflicts of interest at its meeting of 25 October 2013 and that the policy is currently being finalised on this basis, with the aim of publishing it in the first quarter of 2014; calls on the Foundation to submit the adopted document to the discharge authority;
15.

Welcomes the fact that the Authority has now adopted its policy and rules on the management of conflicts of interests for members of its Board of Supervisors and Management Board, as well as for its staff members and contractual parties; acknowledges that the Authority adopted its Ethics Rules in 2011 and established specific provisions for its Stakeholders Groups and Board of Appeal to handle potential conflicts of interests; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority whether it intends to review its Ethic Rules on the basis of the Commission’s Guidelines on the Prevention and Management of Conflicts of Interests in EU Decentralized Agencies;
21.

Considers the responsibilities of the Union Special Representatives (EUSRs) to be very unclear; deeply regrets that information on the use of the budget they receive to implement their mandate continues to be obscure and is concerned that information is not forthcoming unless asked for; expresses concern that the EUSR budget was raised from EUR 15 million in 2011 to EUR 27 million in 2012, especially in light of the fact that the High Representative was planning to do away with EUSRs in 2010; notes that this is an increase of 80 % and that compared with 2011, the EUSR travel budget for 2012 was tripled; calls on the EEAS to provide adequate information on Union Special Representatives’ responsibilities and on their use of the budget;
1.

Reminds that the work programme for the activity covered by budget line 08 02 04 01 ‘Science for and with society’ indicates commitments of some EUR 53 million in 2014 while Draft amending budget No 1/2014 does not suggest any allocations to this line; reminds the Commission of the commitment made during the budgetary trilogue of 2 April 2014 to immediately proceed to an internal transfer to line 08 02 04 01 ‘Science for and with society’ in order to ensure the smooth start of this activity according to the work programme and as foreseen in the legal base;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/85

P8_TA(2014)0098

Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: Regions affected by disasters

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2014 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 11 of 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 (COM(2014)0348 — C8-0021/2014 — 2014/2038(BUD))

(2016/C 294/35)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0348 — C8-0021/2014),

— 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 Joint conclusions agreed by the Parliament and the Council on 8 December 2014,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0077/2014),

A. Whereas, in line with Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 which amended Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, 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.
25.

Notes with concern from the Court's report that the following weaknesses were identified after auditing five operational procurement procedures: — the Joint Undertaking failed to advertise one contract by means of a pre-information notice in one procurement procedure; acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the contract in discussion was launched before the procedure of pre-information notice was approved in September 2012; — in one procurement procedure, an increase of 32 % was observed in comparison to the initial cost estimate; notes furthermore that in two other procurement procedures, due to the nature of the information available in the files, the reconciliation of the difference between the final contract value with the initial estimation value was proven as complicated; acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the complexity of the reconciliation is due to the re-evaluation of the initial scope of the contract, which led to an increase of time as well as to the nature, complexity and amounts involved in such contracts; — one procedure was found not to have specific guidelines and procedures to ensure that the deliverables, used as input documents for the tendering procedures from the third parties, were uniformly and systematically reviewed and formally accepted by the Joint Undertaking; takes note that the Joint Undertaking will prepare a formal checklist in order to ensure appropriate use of third-party information; calls on the Joint Undertaking to implement the checklist as soon as possible in order to avoid such situations in the future; — amendments to the original contract of one of the procurement procedures increased the contract's value by 15 % compared to the initial amount; points out that the information available was not sufficient to conclude that the assessment of the materiality of the amendments was performed as required by the Joint Undertaking's internal procedures; — one procedure's dialogue phase was long delayed, resulting in the final contract conditions and the updated technical version of the tender specifications being sent later than planned as well as in signing the contract four months after the target date;
4.

Considers that the redundancies in Aleo Solar AG are linked to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, with the revenue share of China increasing from 11 % to 45 %, while that of Germany fell from 64 % to 21 % between 2005 and 2011; notes that due to huge Chinese overcapacities in solar modules, which neither its own consumers nor the world market can absorb, EU prices dropped by 40 % in 2011 compared to 2010 and thus below the production costs of Aleo Solar AG; notes that in 2013, the EU approved additional duties on solar modules originating in China, and a minimum price which is still, however, below the production costs of German producers;
9.

Understands that one of the two Institute’s Head of Unit posts mentioned in the Court’s report as being vacant since 2013 was filled in August 2015 and that the other has been advertised and the selection process is ongoing, with the vacancy expected to be filled in the first half of 2016; ascertains from the Court’s report that both posts were occupied ad interim from 2013, which is in contradiction with the Staff Regulations that stipulate a maximum period of one year for such an arrangement; acknowledges that in 2014 one post was occupied by the Chief Operating Officer who served as the interim Director at the same time and who thus fulfilled three roles simultaneously; acknowledges that there has been progress on those issues and that the Institute’s management vacancies are gradually being filled; calls on the Institute to proceed ambitiously with its effort to improve its recruitment procedures, and to take further measures to tackle the instability at management level in the interests of ensuring better operational continuity; calls on the Institute to inform the discharge authority of progress made with regard to recruitment;
23.

Points out that the Agency's role in ensuring the safety and interoperability of European rail system; welcomes the Agency's role in following up the development, testing and implementation of European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS) as well as in evaluating the specific ERTMS projects; notes furthermore that a review of the Agency's role (e.g. one-stop-shop for vehicle authorisation and safety certification) and powers forms part of the Fourth Railway Package; stresses that as it receives greater responsibilities, the Agency will need to be given the necessary financial, material and human resources to perform its new and additional tasks effectively and efficiently; notes with concern the contradiction between the recently approved legislation extending the Agency's mission and the budgetary cuts related to the Agency to be implemented within the scope of the multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020;
18.

Highlights the Agency’s contribution to maritime safety, the prevention of ship pollution in Europe, and the assistance provided to Member States and the Commission under international and Union law; deplores the fact that, while extending competences to a new set of core tasks and introducing new ancillary tasks to be executed by the Agency following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 100/2013 in February 2013, staff reduction and budgetary cuts became applicable in 2014; welcomes and encourages the Agency's collaboration with other European Agencies regarding the refugee crisis and reaffirms that the Agency has to be given the financial, material and human resources it needs to perform its tasks effectively, including when dealing with critically important activities outside its mandate, that is, its contribution in the form of know-how and operational support, through its staff, to managing the refugees crisis;
18.

Recalls that point 27 of 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 (5) calls for a progressive reduction of staff by 5 % in all institutions, bodies and agencies to be effected between 2013 and 2017; takes note of the fact that most agencies have already met or exceeded the 5 % reduction based on their respective 2012 establishment plans; recalls that the Commission started to implement the 5 % reduction in its 2013 establishment plan, basing the calculation on the level of posts in 2012; states that the Commission applied an additional levy of 5 % of staff to the agencies in order to create a redeployment pool from which it would allocate the posts to the agencies with new tasks entrusted to them or in a start-up phase; calls upon the Commission to run a SWOT analysis on the agencies’ mandates and annual work programmes in order to come to an informed decision on which Agencies need more staff and which do not;
23.

Takes the stance that this constitutes a serious failure to comply with the obligations laid down by the Treaties and believes that the relevant stakeholders need to take the necessary steps to address this issue without further delay; stresses that a revision of the Treaties and of the Financial Regulation is needed in order to clarify the objectives and processes of the discharge procedure, and to define sanctions for failing to comply with the rules as stated in the Treaties;
29.

Acknowledges that the setting-up phase of ESFS has still not been completed and therefore notes that the tasks already entrusted to the Authority as well as additional tasks envisaged in ongoing legislative work, require an adequate level of staff, in terms of both numbers and qualifications, and funding to allow for satisfactory supervision; underlines that, in order to uphold the quality of the supervisory work, it is very often the case that an expansion of tasks has to be matched by an expansion of resources; emphasises however that any potential increase in the Authority‘s means must be explained thoroughly and accompanied by rationalisation measures wherever possible;
2.

Observes that the adoption of Draft amending budget No 2/2016 will reduce the share of GNI contributions from Member States to the Union budget in 2016 by EUR 1 349 million; urges, once again, the Member States to use the opportunity of such a reflow to honour their pledges in relation to the refugee crisis and to match the Union contribution to the two dedicated Union Trust Funds; notes with concern that in spring 2016 Member States only contributed EUR 82 million to the Africa Trust Fund and EUR 69 million to the Madad Trust Fund on the Syrian crisis, while the Union's contributions stand at EUR 1,8 billion and more than EUR 500 million respectively;
7.

Observes from the Court's report that the level of committed appropriations carried forward to 2016 was at 26 % for Title II (administrative expenditure) and at 33 % for Title III (operational expenditure); notes that those carry forwards are mainly related to the multiannual nature of the Authority's large IT projects, as well as to mission expenses that could only be reimbursed in 2016; notes that carry-overs may often be partly or fully justified by the multiannual nature of the Authority's 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 by the Authority and communicated to the Court;
F.

whereas the budget for 2008-2015 developed phase of the SESAR project is EUR 2 100 000 000, which is to be provided in equal parts by the Union, Eurocontrol and the participating public and private partners, and moreover the Union budget for the deployment phase of the SESAR 2 Programme 2014-2024 funded from ‘Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (‘Horizon 2020’) is EUR 585 000 000; whereas under the new Horizon 2020 Membership Agreements, the contribution from Eurocontrol is expected to be approximately EUR 500 000 000, and the contribution from the other partners from the aviation industry is expected to be approximately EUR 720 700 000;
4.

Notes that under Rule 94 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, ‘the provisions governing the procedure for granting discharge to the Commission in accordance with Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the implementation of the budget, shall also apply to the procedure for granting discharge to: […] the persons responsible for the implementation of the budgets of other institutions and bodies of the European Union such as the Council […]’;
2.

Notes that, according to the Court's report, the level of carry-overs of committed appropriations was EUR 41 482 (50,5 %) for Title II (administrative expenditure), compared to EUR 8 970 in 2014 (14,9 %); notes that, according to the Agency, those carry-overs related to the purchase of IT hardware and consulting services ordered in the fourth quarter of 2015 that went beyond the year-end, mainly due to a delay in decision-making on the possibility to use the Commission's DIGIT framework contracts;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Finland — EGF/2017/005 FI/Retail)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/7.)
54.

Reiterates its conviction that the EU agencies active in the Justice and Home Affairs field must be urgently ensured the necessary operational expenditure and staffing levels to allow them successfully to take on the additional tasks and responsibilities that they have been given in recent years; welcomes, in this regard, the staff increases proposed for the European Coast and Border Guard Agency (Frontex) and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which it considers to be the minimum to ensure that these agencies can effectively perform their operations; underlines that the proposed budget and staffing level for Europol is insufficient for it to fulfil its assigned tasks, as the Commission and the Member States have decided in previous years to strengthen cooperation between Member States, especially in the fields of combating terrorism, organised crime, cybercrime and human trafficking and of protection for unaccompanied children; underlines the gaps identified in the existing exchange of information architecture, and urges the Commission to provide eu-LISA with the appropriate human and financial resources for it to fulfil the additional tasks and responsibilities recently assigned to it in this respect; underlines the important role of EASO in supporting Member States in the management of asylum applications, especially when dealing with an increased number of asylum seekers; regrets the decrease in the operational funding level (-23,6 % compared to 2017) and the staffing level (-4 %) for Eurojust, which is currently having to face an increase in its casework;
1.

Notes that, according to the Court’s report, in March 2016, the Office launched a procurement procedure with the aim to sign a single framework contract (FWC) with the two existing international schools in Riga for the children of its staff; notes that while the technical specifications of the tender state that the Office would establish one multiple framework contract in cascade with two economic operators, the award criteria stated that the choice of the school lies with the parents; observes that, consequently, the FWC for EUR 400 000, which was signed in July 2016, is based on contradicting concepts, causing legal uncertainty to the Office and the schools; notes moreover, that a FWC was unnecessary in this case; welcomes the Office’s reply stating that in future it will use direct service agreements with the schools, without procurement;
8.

Expresses some concern that several industry members participating in Joint Undertaking's projects could not report their in-kind contributions by the given deadline, either because their own 2016 accounts were not yet closed, or because the projects had started close to the end of 2016; acknowledges that the reporting deadline of 31 January needs to be revised in the case of future legislative proposals to amend Regulation (EU) No 560/2014; acknowledges that in those cases, the Joint Undertaking applied Commission guidelines for accounting standards and made a pro-rata estimation on the basis of project costs; asks, however, that industry members find a way to capture their in-kind contributions to prevent recurrence of this problem;
26.

Points to the central role of the Authority in ensuring better oversight of the Union financial system to ensure financial stability, the necessary transparency and greater security for the Union financial market in particular by coordinating supervision between national supervisory authorities, by cooperating where necessary with institutions responsible for international supervision, as well as by overseeing consistent application of the Union law; emphasises that such cooperation should be based on an atmosphere of trust; underlines the role of the Authority in contributing to and promoting convergent supervisory practices at a high-level in the area of consumer protection, further underlines that attention should be devoted to the specific features of the various national markets when formulating Level 2 and Level 3 measures, and that the market participants concerned should be involved sufficiently promptly in the process of their application, as well as in the individual design and implementation stages; notes the need to properly assess the Authority’s work on a regular basis in the effort to allocate and make the use of its resources more effective, transparent and credible;
17.

Acknowledges that the Agency adopted a comprehensive policy on the prevention and management of conflict of interests, which was amended in 2016, and an anti-fraud strategy; takes note that from a total of 13 actions planned to be implemented by the end of 2017, 11 were already implemented; takes note that the Agency’s controls aimed at preventing and detecting fraud are similar to those ensuring the legality and regularity of transactions, such as ‘the four eyes principle’, automated controls in the financial and accounting systems, externalised calculation of salaries as well as declarations of absence of conflicts of interest always being signed by panel members; notes with satisfaction from the Agency that, since its creation, no fraudulent events have occurred;
ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Spain — EGF/2017/006 ES/Galicia apparel

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/515.)
11.

Observes that, as a consequence of the College’s relocation from the United Kingdom to Hungary, and due to the significantly lower correction coefficient applied to staff salaries in the new location, the number of resignations has increased; notes that a number of mitigating actions have been implemented; notes, however, that the low grading of posts combined with low correction coefficient does not encourage foreigners (especially from West and Northern Europe) to move to Hungary, and that as a result, the geographical balance of staff is not ensured; observes in this regard that in 2016, 30 % of all College staff were Hungarian, which is a disproportionate number; notes with concern from the Court’s report that the high staff turnover may impact business continuity and the College’s ability to implement the activities foreseen in its work programme and points out this problem needs to be addressed; notes furthermore that the geographical balance of staff has an impact on staff cost, which led to the decision to transfer unused funds from Title 1 to Title 3 allowing the implementation of additional operational activities;