2002/453/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 25 April 2002 concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2000 financial year — Section II — Council, Section IV — Court of Justice, Section V — Court of Auditors, Section VI — Economic and Social Committee, Section VII — Committee of the Regions, Section VIII — Ombudsman and concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1996 to 1999 financial years, Section VI — Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2002-04-25
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union, European Committee of the Regions, European Court of Auditors, European Ombudsman, general budget (EU), implementation of the budget

L 158/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.6.2002

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 25 April 2002

concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 2000 financial year — Section II — Council, Section IV — Court of Justice, Section
V — Court of Auditors, Section VI — Economic and Social Committee, Section VII — Committee
of the Regions, Section VIII — Ombudsman and concerning discharge in respect of the
implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1996 to 1999 financial
years, Section VI — Economic and Social Committee

(2002/453/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

— Having regard to the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet in respect of the financial
year 2000 (SEC(2001) 530 — C5-0240/2001, C5-0241/2001, C5-0242/2001, C5-0243/2001,
C5-0244/2001),

— Having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2000, together

with the institutions’ replies (C5-0617/2001) (1),

— Having regard to the Statement of Assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality
and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to
Article 248 of the EC Treaty (C5-0617/2001),

— Having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 5 March 2002 (C5-0124/2002),

— Having regard to Articles 272(10) and 275 of the EC Treaty,

— Having regard to Article 22(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation,

— Having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0094/2002),

— Having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0113/2002),

A. Whereas it is incumbent upon Parliament to monitor the efficient use of the European Union’s
budget on the basis of reports from the Court of Auditors; this evaluation should involve an
assessment of the way in which taxpayers’ money is spent and an appraisal of the effectiveness and
impact of the Community budget in carrying out the policies and goals laid down in the Treaties
and in secondary legislation;

B. Whereas the concept of value for money is of vital importance in assessing the performance of all

EU institutions;

C. Whereas Parliament adopted a resolution on 4 April 2001 postponing the decision concerning
discharge in respect of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1999
Section VI — Part A: Economic and Social Committee (2), following similar postponements in
respect of the financial years 1996, 1997 and 1998;

D. Whereas the Treaty of Nice changed the description of the members of the Economic and Social
Committee (ESC) so that it will in future — if the Treaty is ratified — consist of ‘representatives of
the various economic and social components of organised civil society’ (Article 257 of the EC
Treaty); for the Committee of the Regions (CoR) it explicitly states that the members must hold a
regional or local electoral mandate or be politically accountable to an elected assembly (Article 263
of the EC Treaty);

(1) OJ C 359, 15.12.2001.
(2) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 236.

17.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 158/67

E. Whereas in its resolution of 31 May 2001 on the Treaty of Nice and the future of the European
Union (1) (paragraph 24) Parliament applauded the provisions relating to the ESC, ‘which make it
more representative of the various sectors of society’ and those relating to the CoR, ‘the democratic
legitimacy of whose members is strengthened’;

F. Whereas Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2673/1999 of 13 December 1999 amending
the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (2) which entered into force on 1 January 2000 stated that the Ombudsman’s budget
would in future represent an independent section (Section VIII) within the general budget of the
European Union;

G. Whereas under the terms of Article 22(5) of the Financial Regulation, the Ombudsman is to be
treated, for the purposes of the Financial Regulation, as an institution of the Communities;

H. Whereas although the Ombudsman is appointed by the European Parliament, he is completely
independent in the performance of his duties and he enjoys full budgetary autonomy since 2000
which justifies a discharge decision separate from the one relating to the Secretary-General of the
European Parliament;

General matters concerning all institutions

1. Notes the Court of Auditors’ observations (see paragraph 7.3 of the annual report) that the general
approach adopted by the institutions to the analysis of budgetary management does not inform
readers of the most significant features of expenditure for the year; agrees with the Court that the
institutions should provide a more global analysis in the future, focusing on the main trends in
expenditure and the major capital items, as well as identifying the key savings and measures of
efficiency;

2.

3.

4.

5.

Endorses the Court’s recommendation (paragraph 7.66) that the institutions in Brussels should
explore the possibility of setting up a joint structure to take charge of the various technical and
financial aspects of construction matters; urges the institutions to pursue their efforts to create a
joint structure in Luxembourg;

Invites all institutions to comply with the recommendations of the Court (paragraph 7.35) to amend
the way they set out their budget so as to distinguish between rent, costs of acquisition and other
types of expenditure, such as lease payments where there is an option to purchase;

Recalls the second paragraph of Article 24 of the Financial Regulation which requires each financial
controller to draw up an annual report on his work; asks that each of these annual reports in respect
of all the institutions be forwarded to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, as soon as
possible, so that they may be taken into account in the preparation of the next discharge decision;

Recalls that Article 24a(4) of the Financial Regulation requires each internal auditor to submit an
annual internal report to his institution on his work; asks that these reports be transmitted to
Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control so as to help that Committee in its assessments in the
discharge context;

6. Notes that the eighth paragraph of Article 24 of the Financial Regulation requires that, as regards
financial controllers, ‘their appointment, their promotion and disciplinary rules or transfer, and any
interruption or termination of appointment by whatever procedure shall be the subject of reasoned
decisions to be forwarded, for information, to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission
and the Court of Auditors’; insists that all such documentation be sent to the Parliament’s Committee
on Budgetary Control in the context of its discharge responsibilities;

(1) OJ C 47 E, 21.2.2002, p. 108.
(2) OJ L 326, 18.12.1999, p. 1.

L 158/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.6.2002

Section II — Council

7. Notes the reply from the Chairman of the Permanent Representatives Committee dated 25 January
2002 to the questionnaire sent by the Committee on Budgetary Control on 6 December 2001 and
the additional information received subsequently;

8.

Is grateful for the answers provided by the Council relating to budgetary aspects of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy; notes that a substantial part of the Council’s budget is now spent on
activities in the fields of foreign affairs, security and defence policy and justice and home affairs, and
that the expenditure in these areas is not currently subject to the same close scrutiny as the
administrative and operational expenditure of the other Institutions;

9. Accepts that the European Parliament and the Council have not,

in the past, scrutinised the
implementation of their respective sections of the budget; considers that in view of the increasingly
operational nature of expenditure, financed under the Council’s administrative budget, in the fields
of foreign affairs, security and defence policy and justice and home affairs, the scope of this
arrangement should be clarified with a view to distinguishing traditional administrative expenditure
from operations in these new policy areas;

Section IV — Court of Justice

10. Welcomes the fact that for the first time the balance sheet includes the value of buildings held by

the Court of Justice under a lease with an option to purchase;

11. Notes with satisfaction the Court of Justice’s reply that when the balance sheet for the financial year
2001 is drawn up, the net accounting value will be amended to take account of the over-valuation
of the buildings (incorrect calculation of depreciation) pointed out by the Court of Auditors
(paragraph 7.13);

12. Notes the Court of Auditors’ finding (paragraph 7.14) that the reliability of the value of the other
tangible fixed assets shown on the balance sheet, i.e. EUR 9,8 million in total, cannot be guaranteed;
notes that the Court of Justice addresses this point in its replies;

13. Draws attention to an apparent contradiction between the Court of Auditors’ statement (para-
graph 7.14) that the Court of Justice has still not implemented the new inventory management
system or conducted a full physical inventory and the Court of Justice’s replies to the annual report
for 2000 and to the questionnaire forwarded by the Committee on Budgetary Control;

14. Notes that the Court of Justice’s replies do, however, refer to inconsistencies between the physical

inventory and the data recorded in the new computerised system;

15.

Invites the Court of Justice in the interest of clarification to submit a full report to the Committee on
Budgetary Control by 1 July 2002 setting out the current position with regard to its inventory
management system;

16. Recalls that in the context of the 1999 discharge procedure it considered the Court of Auditors’
Special Report No 5/2000 (1) on the Court of Justice’s expenditure on buildings (see paragraph 20
of the Special Report) and asked to be informed of the conclusions of the expert appointed jointly
with the Luxembourg authorities by the first reading of the 2002 draft budget;

17. Notes that according to paragraph 7.67 of the Court of Auditors’ annual report these investigations
into invoicing irregularities had only just started in June 2001 and that the Court of Justice (2)
expects them to be completed during the first half of 2002;

(1) OJ C 109, 14.4.2000.
(2) Replies to the questionnaire, paragraph 4.3.

17.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 158/69

18. Asks the Court of Justice to forward the expert’s report on invoicing irregularities as soon as it is
available to the Committee on Budgetary Control, together with the separate expert’s report
determining items of expenditure which should not be included in the final statement of account;

19. Notes that the Court of Auditors (paragraph 7.27 of the annual report) found five cases where the
grounds for claiming exemption from tender procedures were questionable, of which four related to
the Court of Justice, and one case (also concerning the Court of Justice) where a procurement need
appeared to have been split into several contracts; takes note of the replies of the Court of Justice
which justify the procedures followed in all five cases; endorses the recommendation of the Court of
Auditors (paragraph 7.30) that ‘all institutions should apply the same thresholds when deciding
whether a proposed procurement of services or supplies falls within the scope of Public Procurement
Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC’;

20. Notes that the time required for the Court of Justice to complete its judicial work has increased, as
has the backlog of cases pending; calls on the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors to make
more in-depth assessments of the causes of such problems in order to identify in particular exactly
what may be attributed to the court procedures provided for in the Treaty, what to administrative
problems that can be resolved and what to a lack of staff and facilities;

Section V — Court of Auditors

21. Notes the report (1) by the independent auditor (KPMG Audit, Luxembourg) on the Court of

Auditors’ accounts for the financial year 2000;

22. Points out that while the Court of Auditors gives a single Statement of Assurance based on the
consolidated accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Community in accordance with
Article 248(1) of the Treaty, that Statement of Assurance nevertheless contains remarks concerning
the legality and regularity of the transactions carried out by individual institutions (paragraph 7.6);
asks the Court in the interests of greater transparency to examine the possibility of issuing a separate
Statement of Assurance for each institution in its next annual report;

23. Welcomes the addition to Article 248(1) by the Treaty of Nice of a provision to the effect that the
Statement of Assurance ‘may be supplemented by specific assessments for each major area of
Community activity’;

24. Calls on the Court of Auditors to adapt the Statement of Assurance into an instrument enabling the
discharge and budgetary authorities to compare and monitor progress in financial management and
control over time, preferably in a quantified manner;

25. Urges the Court to agree with the Commission on a common methodology for calculating error
rates by directorate-general or by category of expenditure; suggests the Court uses data from Member
States resulting from obligatory controls in the field of agriculture and the Structural Funds in order
to increase the sample; expects the Court to publish a global error rate and error rates by directorate-
general or by category of expenditure in the context of the 2001 discharge;

26. Welcomes the fact that as regards Parliament’s demand for ‘naming’ specific Member States found
or suspected to be deficient in protecting the financial interests of the Union, the annual report for
2000 and the Special Reports published during the year already contain references to individual
Member States; regrets that the Court (2) does not consider it appropriate to list in an annex to the
annual report the individual errors identified in each Member State in an easily readable way;

(1) OJ C 312, 7.11.2001.
(2) Replies to questionnaire, paragraph 6.1.

L 158/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.6.2002

27. Welcomes the priority being given by the Court to improving the presentation of its audit
observations in its reports so as to make them more consumer-friendly by the use of more
informative headings and more clearly identified recommendations but waits for action on this
before making a judgment on its success;

Requests made to the Court of Auditors

28. Notes that on taking office the Members of the Court, in accordance with their code of conduct,
complete a form containing information concerning their financial interests and assets which is
forwarded to the President of the Court; takes the view that these declarations, like those of Members
of the European Parliament and of the Commission, should be published on the Internet, as
requested in paragraph 18 of Parliament’s decision of 4 April 2001, concerning discharge in respect
of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year:
Section IV — Court of Justice, Section V — Court of Auditors, Section VI — Part B — Committee
of the Regions (1); invites the Court as recomposed following the new appointments made with
effect from 1 January 2002 to take a formal decision on this issue and communicate it in writing to
the Committee on Budgetary Control by 1 July 2002;

29. Asks the Court to include in its work programme for 2003 a timetable indicating anticipated

completion of the Court’s special reports;

30. Recalls paragraph 19 of its abovementioned decision of 4 April 2001 requesting the Court to extend
its auditing activities to the Council, thus enabling Parliament, if appropriate, to make observations
on the implementation of that institution’s budget in the framework of the discharge procedure;

31. Notes with satisfaction that the annual report for 2000 contains remarks concerning the Council
(mission expenses, entry of depreciation of buildings in the balance sheet) to which the Council has
consented to reply (paragraphs 7.2 and 7.12);

Section VI — Economic and Social Committee (ESC)

Value for money

32. Emphasises that the Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the European taxpayer is well

served and that it has a duty to ensure value for money;

33. Points out that in recent years the views of some of the organisations represented in the ESC have

been increasingly channelled through the European Parliament;

34. Notes that the Social Protocol first referred to in the Maastricht Treaty, and later incorporated into
the Social Chapter of the EC Treaty (Article 138) makes provision for the social partners to be
consulted in the formulation of policy;

35. Points out that the ESC can only be consulted on the formulation of policy and can make

recommendations but that the social dialogue by contrast can lead to binding legislation;

36.

Is concerned on the one hand that the social partners are critical about the lack of resources available
to them for the social dialogue and on the other hand notes that in 2000 the ESC’s final budget was
EUR 80 976 436; enlargement is expected to bring its annual expenditure up to EUR 99,6 million (2)
by 2004 (although some of this includes joint costs with the CoR);

37. Points out that this is the first time the Parliament has had the opportunity to assess the value for
money of the ESC since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and since the social dialogue
has been set up;

(1) OJ L 160, 15.6.2001, p. 38.
(2) ESC report to the budgetary authorities, October 2001.

17.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 158/71

38. Recognises that the ESC can act as a forum for interest groups which would not otherwise be able

to make their voices heard in the EU context;

39. Believes that there is a real question as to the value for money of running both the ESC and the

social dialogue;

40. Points out that responsibility for nominating Members of the ESC lies with the Member States; urges
the Member States to examine carefully their representation within the ESC in the context of the
forthcoming renewal of its membership;

41. Takes the view that ESC Members must improve their efforts to ensure that information about the

ESC’s activities reaches the grass roots, e.g. trade unionists in the Member States;

42. Urges the ESC to continue its efforts on the path towards modernisation;

43.

Invites the ESC to redouble its efforts to consult as wide a network as possible of national contacts
in order to increase the visibility of the ESC;

44. Calls on the Commission to think again about the efficiency and significance of the ESC in the
context of the some 300 existing consultative bodies and committees configured around the
Commission, so as to avoid overlapping and duplication of effort;

OLAF report

45. Recalls that in previous years’ discharge procedures, Parliament decided to postpone its decision in
respect of the ESC for the financial years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 pending clarification of
irregularities concerning the payment of Members’ travel allowances in 1995 to 1996;

46. Draws attention to paragraph 2 of its resolution of 7 October 1998 informing the Economic and
Social Committee of the reasons for the postponement of the decision concerning the discharge of
the general budget of the European Union for the 1996 financial year — Section VI — Part A —
Economic and Social Committee (1) in which Parliament called for the issue to be referred to the
Court of Auditors and to UCLAF:

(i)

(ii)

to enable the reliability of the new reimbursement system recommended by the Court of
Auditors and the conditions for the recovery of incorrectly paid expenditure to be checked; and

to enable the extent of administrative involvement or responsibility to be fully determined as
regards the entry into the accounts, the commitment, the authorisation and the payment of
expenditure;

47. Notes that following Parliament’s abovementioned resolution of 7 October 1998:

— the Court of Auditors confirmed in its annual report for 1999 that between the end of 1998
and the beginning of 2000 the ESC had gradually implemented the measures recommended in
its opinion No 7/98 (2) with regard to the reform of its rules and arrangements for the payment
of allowances to its Members,

— on 30 July 2001 OLAF (3) completed the final report containing its conclusions and
recommendations with respect to the reimbursement of the travel expenses of Members of the
ESC in 1995 and 1996;

(1) OJ C 328, 26.10.1998, p. 115.
(2) Opinion No 7/98 on the effectiveness of the methods of recovery applied by the ESC and on the new system

introduced in the ESC for the administration and reimbursement of travel expenses.

(3) The investigative unit which replaced UCLAF with effect from 1 July 1999 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/olaf/

mission/en.htm).

L 158/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.6.2002

48. Regrets, however, that OLAF was unwilling to supply a copy of the final report to the Chairman of

the Committee on Budgetary Control;

49. Notes that according to its standard practice OLAF delivered its report to the ESC on the
understanding that it was the responsibility of the ESC to pass it on to the European Parliament;

50. Notes the finding by the OLAF Supervisory Committee (minutes of the Supervisory Committee
meeting of 15 and 16 January 2002) that OLAF had not been in a position to handle that case
appropriately and that its investigation had been a failure in every respect;

51. Endorses the call by the OLAF Supervisory Committee for no-holds-barred disclosure of the reasons

for that failure and notes that, to date, no credible explanation has been given as to why:

(a)

the investigators were evidently prevented by their superiors from sending a questionnaire to
all the ESC Members concerned;

(b)

even the 60 ESC Members most affected were not questioned by OLAF;

(c)

(d)

the ESC Directors-General and Secretaries-General responsible at the time in question were not
questioned by OLAF either although it had been alleged that they had covered up and hushed
up the travel expenses refund fraud which had been committed for years;

the Belgian judicial authorities had not been involved in time: the OLAF investigators knew
that the courts would have no option but to take no further action because the matter had
become time-barred;

52. Requests the OLAF Supervisory Committee to notify the Committee on Budgetary Control of the
outcome of its further investigations into this matter; expects disciplinary proceedings to be
instituted if suspicions are confirmed that, in this case, there was gross negligence on the part of
OLAF’s senior management and that the actions of a number of officials called into question their
competence as investigators;

53. Considers that procedures must be devised to allow Parliament’s competent committee to be given
access by OLAF to reports directly concerning the discharge procedure; acknowledges the need for
such information to be dealt with on a confidential basis where judicial or analogous investigations
are still pending; invites OLAF to submit proposals for the sharing of such information in future
cases, subject if necessary to appropriate safeguards;

54. Commends the current Chairman and Secretary-General of the ESC for their willingness to provide
a copy of the OLAF report, albeit on a confidential basis, and all other documentation requested by
the Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the rapporteur;

55. Regrets that the OLAF report has been so long delayed and that its late arrival now obviates
implementation of its recommendations either for the recovery of further sums from its Members
or for disciplinary proceedings against officials;

56. Notes that the Belgian judicial authorities decided in August 2001 to file the matter without further
action on the ground inter alia that the facts disclosed were now so old as to be time-barred under
the Belgian statute of limitations;

57. Notes serious worries in the report, such as OLAF’s failure to interview in their capacity as
authorising officers the Secretaries-General of the ESC in office at the time of the events in question
and immediately thereafter; regrets that as regards its substantive findings, the report does not enable
the extent of administrative responsibility to be fully determined;

58. Points out that it would have been open to the ESC itself to refer the matter to UCLAF or the Belgian
judicial authorities when it was first informed of the results of its Financial Controller’s inquiries in
1996 but that it did not do so;

17.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 158/73

59. Regrets that so much time was allowed to pass and the apparent lack of any real effort on the part
of those in positions of responsibility at the ESC at the relevant time to take early remedial action
despite clear knowledge of the seriousness of the irregularities affecting the reimbursement of travel
expenses in 1995 to 1996;

60. Regrets that OLAF was impeded in the conduct of its inquiries by the reluctance of certain airlines
to confirm that specific journeys claimed for by ESC Members had actually been made; believes that
it is not acceptable for OLAF’s legitimate inquiries to be thwarted in this way; invites OLAF to
submit proposals for dealing with such situations more vigorously should they arise in the future;

61. Recognises that the Members of the ESC receive no remuneration from that institution for their

activities on its behalf other than the reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses;

62. Notes as regards the financial year 2000 and the period to date that the ESC has embarked on a

substantial programme of modernisation (1) comprising:

— reorganisation of its decision-making bodies including a reduction in the number of Bureau

Members;

— increasing the number of administrative checks on the reimbursement of Members’ expenses;

— generalised payments by bank transfer;

— preparatory work on the drafting of a Members’ statute;

expects the ESC to continue to pursue the same course of action over the coming years;

63. Notes that the ESC failed to make every effort to limit the loss to the taxpayer or make good that

loss as far as possible; points out in this connection that:

(a)

right from the outset, given that there had been fraud over many years, the ESC’s estimate of
the loss was far too low and, for 1995 and 1996 alone, an amount of EUR 830 185,77 ought
to have been claimed back,

(b) only EUR 167 432,39 was actually repaid and the ESC has evidently dispensed with recovering

the remainder;

Section VII — Committee of the Regions (CoR)

64. Notes from the Committee of the Regions’ replies to the Court of Auditors’ annual report
(paragraph 7.22) that the CoR is often unable to use the results of tenders organised by other
institutions either for official reasons or because they do not take account of the Committee’s
specific needs;

65. Calls upon the larger institutions in the interests of economy and efficiency to make greater use of
inter-institutional calls for tender and in the preparatory stages thereof to ensure whenever possible
that due account is taken of the specific needs of the smaller institutions; invites all the institutions
to examine the feasibility of using other institutions’ tender procedures on the basis of ‘mutual
recognition’;

66. Notes that as from 1 January 2000 the Common Organisational Structure with the ESC was replaced
by a cooperation agreement between the two committees which maintains joint operations in the
majority of departments but establishes autonomy in the finance and staff departments; asks the
CoR to submit a report evaluating the budgetary advantage of maintaining separate finance and staff
departments for the two committees to the Committee on Budgetary Control and to the Committee
on Budgets by 1 July 2002;

(1) ‘The ESC on the road to modernisation’, October 2000.

L 158/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.6.2002

Buildings policy (ESC and CoR)

67. Notes that on 15 December 2000 the ESC and the CoR signed contracts each conferring a 27-year

lease with an option to purchase the Belliard and Montoyer buildings respectively;

68. Welcomes the reply to paragraph 7.33 by the ESC and the CoR that the capital value of the
Montoyer and Belliard buildings will be included in their balance sheets for 2001, together with the
advance of EUR 26 million already paid;

69. Recalls the conclusion of the Court of Auditors (paragraph 7.68) that ‘the committees (ESC and
CoR) when renewing and renegotiating the contract concerning the Belliard building formerly
occupied by the European Parliament found themselves in a difficult position as a result of an
obligation placed upon them by the Parliament, i.e. that of taking over this building, for which the
Parliament had signed a lease running until 2007’;

70. Recalls that in paragraph 9 of its abovementioned resolution of 4 April 2001 postponing the 1999
discharge for the ESC, Parliament undertook ‘to examine the conditions of this agreement in next
year’s discharge procedure’;

71. Notes that the essential features of the overall arrangement were as follows:

— Parliament was released from its obligation to continue to rent the Belliard building until 2007;

— the owners would reimburse Parliament’s rent payment in respect of the period 1 January to

31 March 2001;

— the two committees would reimburse Parliament’s rent payments during 2000;

— Parliament would be released from its obligation to return the building to its original state on

termination of its lease;

— the two committees would, in late 2003 or early 2004, occupy a building suitable for their

needs with modern technical facilities and meeting high ecological standards;

— the terms entailed an advance payment of EUR 26 million intended to finance the specific
needs of the two committees in a building fully renovated by the owners and an indexed yearly
payment of EUR 8,28 million (reduced to EUR 6 709 288 for the period of the renovation
work);

— the committees would have the option to purchase the freehold for EUR 1;

72. Recalls that by letter of 17 October 2000 the Chairman and rapporteur of the Committee on
Budgets informed the ESC and the CoR that the signature of the contract was in line with the
principles set by Parliament on 28 March 2000 when it approved the carry-over of EUR 26 million
intended to finance the specific functional requirements of the two committees; the Committee on
Budgets therefore had no objection to the two committees signing 27-year lease contracts for the
Belliard and Montoyer buildings;

73. Draws attention, however, to the remark by the Court of Auditors [paragraph 7.27(c)] that the rental
contract also covered refurbishment work which was not put out to tender; notes that the two
committees’ replies do not address this point;

74. Observes that the two committees responded to the Court of Auditors’ suggestion (paragraph 7.68)
that the contract should be renegotiated forthwith to provide the option of an early repayment
under economically reasonable conditions; notes, however, that the owners were unwilling to offer
acceptable terms and that the two committees had therefore suspended negotiations;

17.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 158/75

75. Points out that while the contracts signed on 15 December 2000 have the advantage of providing
the two committees with up-to-date accommodation suitable for their needs and which they will
ultimately own outright, and removing from Parliament’s accounts the budgetary burden of a
building which was no longer required after the opening of the D3 (Spinelli building), the Belliard
building will have been unoccupied for some six years but with rent still being paid from the
Community budget from September 1997 to late 2003 or early 2004;

76. Observes moreover that
consequences, namely:

the move to the Belliard building will generate further financial

— the cost of removals from the ESC’s and the CoR’s current premises in the Ravenstein building;

— the cost of restoring the Ravenstein building prior to handing it back to the owners after

40 years occupation;

— the additional posts in the committees’ establishment plans required to manage the Belliard

project;

77. Notes that as a consequence of the ESC’s takeover of the Belliard building, the owners have avoided
a situation in which they would in 2007 have recovered possession of an obsolete building with
some asbestos contamination (1) and therefore requiring full renovation at their sole expense in
order to be made suitable for re-letting;

78. Endorses the recommendation by the Court of Auditors (paragraph 7.66), broadly welcomed by the
institutions in their replies, for the setting-up of a joint structure to take charge of the technical and
financial aspects of construction matters for the EU institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg;

Section VIII — Ombudsman

79. Recalls that in paragraph 41 of its decision of 4 April 2001 concerning discharge in respect of the
implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year — Section
I — European Parliament/Ombudsman (Annex) (2) Parliament pointed out the need to avoid the
cancellation of a significant part of the appropriations available to the Ombudsman;

80. Notes that in the Ombudsman’s implementation of the 2000 budget the proportion of initial
appropriations cancelled was 17,52 % (1999: 14,46 %; 1998: 8,58 %), representing an upward
trend; repeats its request to the Ombudsman to improve the take-up of the funds placed at his
disposal by the budgetary authority;

Discharge decisions

81. Grants discharge to the Secretary-General of the Economic and Social Committee in respect of the

implementation of its budget for the financial years 1996 and 1997;

82. Grants discharge to the Secretary-General of the Economic and Social Committee in respect of the

implementation of its budget for the financial years 1998 and 1999;

(1) ESC/CoR progress reports to the Committee on budgets, 6.10.2000 and 14.6.2001.
(2) OJ L 160, 15.6.2001, p. 25.

L 158/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.6.2002

83. Grants discharge to the Registrar of the Court of Justice, to the Secretaries-General of the Court of
Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and to the
Ombudsman in respect of the implementation of their budgets for the financial year 2000;

84.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice,
the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and to
the Ombudsman and to have it published in the Official Journal (L series).

The Secretary-General

Julian PRIESTLEY

The President

Pat COX