2012/545/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II — Council
Date: 2012-05-10
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, budgetary discharge, financial year, general budget (EU)




L_2012286EN.01002201.xml










17.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 286/22








            DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 10 May 2012
         
on discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II — Council
(2012/545/EU)


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,






—


having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010 (1),










—


having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 473 – C7-0258/2011) (2),










—


having regard to the Council’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,










—


having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (3),










—


having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,










—


having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members (6),










—


having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (7),










—


having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0095/2012),






1.   

Postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council’s budget for the financial year 2010;



2.   

Sets out its observations and reservations in the resolution below;



3.   

Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution forming an integral part thereof to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).






The President

Martin SCHULZ
            



The Secretary-General

Klaus WELLE
            





(1)  
            OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

(2)  
            OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.

(5)  
            OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)  Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7).

(7)  
            OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.






            RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 10 May 2012
         
with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II — Council


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,






—


having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010 (1),










—


having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 473 – C7-0258/2011) (2),










—


having regard to the Council’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,










—


having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (3),










—


having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,










—


having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members (6),










—


having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (7),










—


having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0095/2012),






1.   

In keeping with its power to make use of the two deadlines in the discharge timetable in order, in this case, to explore the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Presidency-in-Office, postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council’s budget for the financial year 2010;



2.   

Takes note of the fact that, in its annual report for 2010, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its audit work, that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error; points out that the most likely error rate as regards administrative expenditure in general is estimated at 0,4 % (paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10);



3.   

Acknowledges receipt of a series of documents for the 2010 discharge procedure (final financial statements for 2010, including the accounts, the financial activity report and the summary of the 2010 internal audits); is still awaiting all necessary documents for a discharge (including the full 2010 internal audit);



4.   

Hopes that Parliament will receive the complete annual activity report; insists that the annual activity report also provides a comprehensive overview of all human resources available to the Council, broken down by category, grade, gender, participation in vocational training and nationality;



5.   

Points out that in its 2010 annual report the Court of Auditors criticised the financing of the Residence Palace building project because of the advance payments (paragraph 7.19); notes that the Court of Auditors made the observation that during the period 2008-2010 advance payments made by the Council totalled EUR 235 000 000; notes that the amounts paid came from under-utilised budget lines; points out that ‘under-utilised’ is the politically correct term for ‘over-budgeted’; points out that in 2010 the Council increased the budget line for ‘Acquisition of immovable property’ by EUR 40 000 000;



6.   

Notes the Council’s explanation concerning the fact that the appropriations were made available by budget transfers authorised by the budget authority in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 22 and 24 of the Financial Regulation;



7.   

Shares the Court of Auditors’ view that such a procedure does not comply with the principle of budget accuracy, despite the savings made in paying rent;



8.   

Notes the Council’s reply that the amounts for the budget lines for interpretation and delegations’ travel expenses should be more in line with the real consumption and calls for a better budgetary planning in order to avoid current practices in the future;



9.   

Reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament’s request to carry out an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it carried out in relation to the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor in the course of preparation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010;



10.   

Regrets the difficulties encountered in the discharge procedures for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial years, which were due to the unwillingness of the Council to engage in an open and formal dialogue with the Committee on Budgetary Control as well as to answer the questions of the Committee; points out that Parliament refused to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 2011 (8) and 25 October 2011 (9);



11.   

Reiterates its view that the European taxpayers have every right to expect that the entirety of the Union budget, including all the funds managed autonomously by its separate institutions and agencies, should be subject to full public scrutiny;



12.   

Deplores the fact that, unlike the other Union institutions, the Council does not consider itself responsible for the use of the funds made available to it;



13.   

Notes the flaw in the Council’s argument that granting discharge to the Commission should be interpreted as granting discharge to the entirety of the Union budget, including parts of the budget used by the Council, is demonstrated by its inconsistent adherence to the position that the Commission should not have the power to oversee and manage its budget; believes that the only logical resolution of this conflict is for Council either to invite the Commission to take control of its finances or to participate fully in a standard discharge procedure which must necessarily follow mutatis mutandis the full procedures followed for all the other institutions of the European Union;



14.   
Reiterates that the Parliament is still waiting for the reply of the Council on the actions and request for documents set out in the two above mentioned resolutions; calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure with comprehensive written answers to the following questions:






(a)


with regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly, however, it is considered of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members’ questions referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates on the Council discharge in Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure?










(b)


why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge onwards please present the internal audit in (a) language(s) other than French?










(c)


has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to make one?










(d)


until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council’s understanding of ‘respond to the appropriate enquiries’?










(e)


the Court of Auditors, in its annual report 2009, found that in two out of six procurement procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar cases in the future?










(f)


staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSRs): Please indicate the staff (all staff, establishment plan and others) — number of posts, grade — for the EUSRs in the Council for 2009. In which way and when will the EUSRs-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the travel budget for each of the EUSRs? How many of the EUSRs’ staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will remain with the Council and why?










(g)


the Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in point 2.2 in the financial activity report (11327/2010, FIN 278). Has the Council solved the problems concerning Mr Solana’s expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget?










(h)


what were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc. envisaged by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HR/VP)?










(i)


the HR/VP came into office on 1 December 2009. How was the cost distributed between the Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)? How did the Council prepare the budget for the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities?










(j)


how will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council’s plans on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is the anticipated cost for the removals? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) published?










(k)


what was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) tasks, which were at least part- financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of CFSP expenditure in 2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost in 2009?










(l)


what was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and elsewhere and where did these meetings take place?










(m)


what was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expenditures arising from military operations has been charged to the Union budget?










(n)


what was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the ‘ATHENA’ mechanism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report?










(o)


there is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council’s establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on how the Council’s General Secretariat (CGS) functions? Can the CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons for the persistent discrepancy?










(p)


what is the total number of posts assigned to the task of ‘policy coordination’ and administrative support (as defined in the Commission’s annual staff screening reports)? What percentage of the overall number of posts do these represent?










(q)


to achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working procedures. How does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? In addition, the Council is asked to report on further measures taken in this respect and in particular those to improve the quality of financial management as well as their impact;










(r)


the Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the Irish language unit. How many staff members deal with other languages (staff per language)? Are there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the affirmative — how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)?










(s)


the ‘Reflection Group’ was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? The Council earmarked EUR 1 060 000 for the ‘Reflection Group’. How many posts can be allocated to this group?










(t)


the expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic (cf. Council note 15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many different budget lines?










(u)


why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add ‘les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais d’interprétation’ (delegates’ travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) after strong criticism in the last two resolutions from Parliament on the Council discharge?










(v)


the Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delegations’ travel expenses; as a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to considerably less than the initial budget, and less than half of the amount available after the transfer (EUR 36 100 000 initial and EUR 48 100 000 available after transfer against EUR 22 700 000 committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 000 000 transfer (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 -point 3.3.2-VI bullet)?? Why is the transfer from interpretation to delegates’ travelling expenses estimated at EUR 12 000 000 by the Council at page 12 and at EUR 10 558 362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is EUR 17 798 362)? In addition, the Council is asked to explain the large amount of recovery orders made before 2009 and carried over to 2009 (EUR 12 300 000) as well as recoveries made from declarations relating to 2007 (EUR 6 300 000);










(w)


in 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17 800 000 in addition to EUR 15 000 000 earmarked in Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can the CGS provide concrete figures of the savings achieved as a result of this? What was the initially projected cost of the Residence Palace Building? Does the Council think the initially projected cost will be accurate or could the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are envisaged to finance the building?










(x)


implementation of the Council budget — appropriations carried over: Could the Council present the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the year 2009 and therefore carried over?










(y)


the carry-over to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to EUR 31 800 000. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for this high carry-over ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010?










(z)


what does ‘technical provision of EUR 25 000 000 for the launch of the European Council 2010’ mean? (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 3.1, IV bullet);










(aa)


what is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines?










(ab)


can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council’s financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament’s resolution of 25 November 2009 (10) accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the financial year 2007?










(ac)


Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament’s Committee responsible for the discharge procedure with the following documents:






—


the full list of budgetary transfers concerning the 2009 Council budget,










—


a written statement on the Council’s mission expenses as carried out by the EUSRs,










—


the Members States’ declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 3.2.2, II bullet), and










—


the report of the ‘Reflection Group’ in order to understand why such a report costs EUR 1 060 000 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 2;










15.   

Notes the Commission’s reply of 25 November 2011 to the letter from the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, in which the Commission says it is desirable for Parliament to continue to give, postpone or refuse discharge to the other institutions as has been the case up until now;



16.   

Points out that on 31 January 2012 the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control sent a letter to the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, stating his wish to establish political dialogue and forwarding supplementary questions from the Committee on Budgetary Control on discharge to the Council; hopes therefore that the Council will provide to the competent committee for the discharge procedure a reply to the questionnaire -attached to the Chair’s letter- before the plenary debate;



17.   

Regrets, however, that the Council refused to attend any official meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control related to its discharge;



18.   

Emphasises the right of Parliament, on the Council’s recommendation, to grant discharge in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which must be interpreted in the light of its context and purpose, which is to submit the implementation of the entire budget of the European Union to parliamentary control and scrutiny without exception, and to grant discharge autonomously, not only in respect of the section of the budget implemented by the Commission, but also in respect of the sections of the budget implemented by the other institutions, as referred to in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation;



19.   
Notes that the Council ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the European citizens for the funds entrusted to it as a Union institution; insists that this means the Council must participate fully and in good faith in the annual discharge process:






—


by responding in detail to the annual questionnaire prepared by the relevant parliamentary Committee,










—


by participating in any public hearing organised by the Committee as requested,










—


by being represented at all relevant meetings of the Committee when the discharge is under discussion;






20.   

Believes the inter-institutional cooperation between Parliament and the Council to be of outmost importance in supervising the implementation of the Union budget; in this respect, asks the Council to provide the answers to the pending questionnaire submitted by Parliament;



21.   

Calls on the Council to discuss the annual discharge for the general budget of the Union in a public part of the Council meeting.




(1)  
            OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

(2)  
            OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.

(5)  
            OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)  Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7).

(7)  
            OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(8)  
            OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 25.

(9)  
            OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 13.

(10)  
            OJ L 19, 23.1.2010, p. 9.