COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Second Simplification Scoreboard for the MFF 2014-2020
Date: 2013-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, administrative formalities, administrative reform, eligibility criteria, financial regulation, fund (EU), simplification of legislation

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.2.2013  
COM(2013) 98 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Second Simplification Scoreboard for the MFF 2014-2020 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Second Simplification Scoreboard for the MFF 2014-2020 

1. 

APPROACHING THE MOMENT OF TRUTH 

The political agreement reached at the European Council on 8 February 2013 paves the way 
for the adoption of the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020. Little time is 
left  for  the  adoption  of  the  legislative  instruments  for  the  different  programmes  under  the 
MFF. Only prompt conclusion of the inter-institutional negotiations could enable the budget 
to be implemented from the start of the next MFF on 1 January 2014. The pending regulatory 
decisions  should  take  full  account  of  and  guarantee  the  most  efficient  delivery  of  the 
resources programmed under the MFF to the European Union (EU) citizens and businesses. 

In  the  framework  of  negotiations  of  sectorial  funding  proposals  under  the  Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020, the Commission is pursuing its firm commitment to 
simplifying funding programmes and procedures1. Simplification aims to make access to EU 
funding easier and to improve delivery of EU policies, whilst maintaining an adequate level 
of control and assurance. Such a commitment is particularly relevant in the current economic 
and  financial  climate,  where  all  resources  available  for  boosting  growth,  jobs  and 
competitiveness in the European Union should be mobilised in the most efficient manner.  

The  European  Council  has  recognised  the  importance  of  simplification  by  calling  that  "all 
sectoral  legislation  relating  to  the  next  MFF  (…)  should  therefore  contain  substantial 
elements contributing to simplification and improving accountability and effective spending 
of EU funds"2. 

In the same perspective, the Council has recently stressed the need for further simplification 
efforts  at  European  and  national  level3,  in  order  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  rules  that  the 
European Court of Auditors has repeatedly identified as one of the main cause of errors. 

Simplification is a strategic issue: simpler rules, less burdensome and less costly procedures 
mean  improved  quality  of  EU  funding,  better  delivery,  broader  and  easier  access  to  EU 
funds. In one word: resources – for economy, growth and jobs.  

In line with the Commission's commitment to monitor and support progress on simplification 
through  negotiations  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  this  Communication 
follows  the  First  Scoreboard  presented  in  September  20124:  it  acknowledges  main 
developments since then, stresses critical issues, and indicates a way forward to simple and 
efficient EU funding for the period 2014-2020. 

This Communication also aims to be a reference point and a support for the Irish Presidency 
of the Council of the European Union, which has started its work with high ambitions and a 

1 
2 
3 

4 

Communication "A Simplification Agenda for the MFF 2014-2020", COM(2012)42 final 
Conclusions of the European Council on the MFF 2014-2020, 8 February 2013, point 9. 
Council  Recommendation  on  Discharge  to  be  given  to  the  Commission  in  respect  of  the 
implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, 12 February 
2013. 
Communication, "First Simplification Scoreboard for the MFF 2014-2020", COM(2012)531 final 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
strong focus on stability, jobs and growth. In its programme, the Irish Presidency expresses 
its commitment to "work intensively with partners, particularly the European Parliament, on 
the inter-institutional agreement of various instruments which will allow funding to be rolled 
out  promptly  to  stimulate  jobs  and  growth.  These  instruments  will  boost  the  EU’s  research 
and  innovation  capabilities,  promote  cohesion  and  boost  smart  investment  in  our  natural 
resources on land and sea"5.  

Simple  rules,  rapid  and  efficient  procedures  are  essential  elements  for  the  foreseen 
promptness in EU funding. 

The European Parliament is also working intensively on the spending programmes: informal 
trilogues with the Commission and the Council have started in  most sectors. The European 
Parliament's  rapporteurs  are  negotiating amendments to the Commission proposals, in view 
of first-reading agreement in plenary. The timely adoption of the legislative acts is necessary 
for  the  implementation  to  start  at  the  beginning  of  2014,  thus  ensuring  continuity  in  EU 
funding. Despite these efforts and significant advancements on some issues, simplification is 
often  not  given  enough  importance  in  the  negotiations:  the  co-legislators  seem  to  privilege 
other  priorities,  even  when  the  recognition  of  such  priorities  in  the  basic  act  affects  the 
programmes themselves in terms of simplicity and accessibility. 

Simplification is often put aside, as a relative issue. 

On 20 September 2012, President Barroso addressed a letter to Mr Martin Schulz, President 
of the European Parliament and Mr Mavroyiannis, the President in Office of the Council, to 
recall the core relevance of simplification and to invite the co-legislators to co-operate further 
with the Commission in  pursuing simplification6. Such an invitation does not seem  to have 
produced the expected effects so far.  

The  co-operation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  with  the  Commission  has 
allowed important achievements on some issues: approval of the new Financial Regulation7, 
consistency  of  rules  in  sectorial  programmes  with  the  Financial  Regulation.  The  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  have  been  open  to  simplification  proposals  across  different 
programmes,  with  reference  to:  definition  of  a  single  framework,  mainstreaming,  clear  and 
coherent  eligibility  rules  (and 
in  particular  simplified  costs),  e-governance,  more 
proportionate  and  effective  control.  More  particularly,  the  co-legislators  have  been  positive 
towards proposals to simplify management, especially for the Member States, and are eager 
to  introduce  additional  flexibility  in  this  respect.  In  some  cases,  excessive  flexibility, 
entailing tailor-made solutions, for instance in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy 
(CAP),  would  hinder  simplification.  Moreover,  the  co-legislators  have  shown  a  desire  to 
increase their ex-ante control over budget execution. To this purpose, they have overloaded 
the legislative proposals adding more detailed provisions, burdensome procedures, or simply 
re-introducing  the  structure  of  funding  programmes  under  the  MFF  2007-2013.  These 
additions would make the spending programmes hard to access for potential beneficiaries and 
hamper delivery of EU funds. This approach would also result in limiting the flexibility of the 
Commission  in  budget  execution.  This  would  be  at  odds  with  the  obligation  of  the 
Commission  to  assume  full  responsibility  for  the  execution  of  the  budget  on  the  one  hand, 
and the discharge competences exerted by the European Parliament on the other. 

5 
6 

7 

Programme of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 1 January-30 June 2013, page 6 
EC  MEMO  12/697,  EUROPA  -  PRESS  RELEASES  -  Press  Release  -  President  Barroso  pushes  for  further 
simplification of the EU budget 
Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012, in application as of 1.01.2013 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  European  Council  has  called  on  the  co-legislators  to  adopt  swiftly  the  financing 
programmes  implementing  the  2014-2020  MFF  so  as  to  ensure  their  timely  roll-out  on  1 
January 2014. It has recalled the "shared objective and responsibility of the institutions and 
the Member States to simplify the funding rules and procedures". It urged the legislators to 
"agree on programmes that are simpler, that mark a clear reduction in administrative burden 
for public authorities and beneficiaries"8. 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  elements  identified  in  the  present  Scoreboard  represent 
major  hurdles  to  simplification  and  the  examples  listed  below  are  the  most  evident 
expressions of general tendencies. These outstanding obstacles should be removed by the co-
legislators,  during  the  final  phase  of  negotiations,  in  view  of  achieving  results  that  best 
correspond to the needs of EU fund beneficiaries and citizens at large. 

2. 

PATTERNS OF SIMPLIFICATION: CRITICAL ISSUES 

2.1. 

Simpler and More Accessible EU Funding Programmes 

The basis of simplification in EU funding is having simple legislative texts. The Commission 
has  proposed  funding  programmes  that  often  merge  different  programmes,  previously 
activated in the same policy area, set general policy priorities and objectives, and define the 
budgetary envelope for the programme. Such general definitions in the basic act are meant to 
cover  priorities  and  objectives  that  are  broad  enough  for  a  long-term  financing  period  of 
seven  years  (2014-2020).  To  respond  promptly  to  changing  policy  priorities  and 
economic/social  needs  during  that  period,  flexibility  has  been  left  to  the  Commission 
services, which will actually manage funds: they would set specific objectives, priorities and 
consequent allocation of funds in annual/multiannual work programmes, consistently with the 
Financial Regulation. 

This  simple,  comprehensive  and  flexible  framework  is  being  challenged  by  some 
modifications proposed by the European Parliament and the Council. Although keeping the 
single  structure  of  new  funding  programmes,  the  co-legislators  are  often  introducing  new 
sectors  and  themes,  which  reproduce  previously  separate  programmes  and/or  add  many 
technical details. 
For example, in the Erasmus for All9 Programme, the Council and the European Parliament 
have proposed to split the chapter on education, training and youth into two separate chapters, 
without altering the overall architecture of the Commission proposal. Yet, the objectives are 
articulated both at programme level and by specific chapter/sector, with a view to increasing 
the  visibility  of  the  different  sectors  and  their  activities.  Furthermore,  the  European 
Parliament  proposes  to  allocate  a  predefined  percentage  of  the  budgetary  envelope  to  each 
sector. 

A similar tendency has arisen in the negotiation of the Programme for Social Change and 
Innovation10, which aims to provide financial support to innovative  actions contributing to 
the  EU’s  objectives  in  terms  of  employment,  social  protection,  the  fight  against  social 
exclusion  and  poverty  and  the  improvement  of  working  conditions.  This  programme 
combines  three  currently  separate  programmes  and  extends  their  coverage,  to  ensure 
integration  and  homogeneity  in  the  pursuit  of  social  policy  objectives.  Axes  for  financing 

8 
9 
10 

Conclusions of the European Council on the 2014-2020 MFF, 8 February 2013, point 12. 
COM(2011)788 
COM(2011)609 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
already reflect the current programmes. Yet, both the European Parliament and the Council 
are  proposing  to  introduce  thematic  sections/areas  within  each  axis  and  set  the  minimum 
budgetary allocation per section, in order to carve up the entire budget of the programme.  
In  the  Consumer11  programme,  the  inflation  of  objectives,  sub-objectives,  eligible  actions 
and indicators to measure achievement of these objectives is accompanied by the attempt by 
the European Parliament to introduce a binding breakdown of the budget that corresponds to 
this detailed structure, including a ceiling for technical assistance. In the case of the Health 
for Growth Programme12, the European Parliament has added objectives, sub-objectives and 
eligible  actions,  thus  fragmenting  the  limited  budget  of  the  programme  and  weakening  its 
focus and effectiveness. 
For European Structural and Investment Funds (hereinafter ESI Funds)  13with regard to 
the definition of terms, conditions and procedures of financial instruments, the Council has 
rejected the use of delegated acts to set detailed modalities. The result is a heavy and rigid 
text,  which,  if  upheld,  would  complicate  the  use  of  financial  instruments.  This  is 
contradictory  with  the  core  relevance  of  financial  instruments  in  the  future  MFF  and  not 
consistent  with  the  Financial  Regulation,  where  similar  elements  have  been  included  in  the 
delegated act.  

Similarly, provisions which contribute to delays in the delivery of investment on the ground 
and reduce the orderly and timely operation of the ESI Funds should be avoided, particularly 
in the current economic circumstances.  

Finally, it is crucial to be able to modify non-essential elements contained in the body of the 
legislative act itself or in annexes to it by delegated acts, to avoid rigidity in budget execution 
(for  example  in  External  Relations14,  innovative  financial  instruments  and  CAP).  The 
Council in particular is opposing proposals in this sense by the Commission, although the co-
legislators dispose of sufficient powers to oppose and even revoke delegated acts.  

These  examples  show  a  tendency  to  perpetuate  the  status  quo  and  direct  EU  financing 
through channels pre-defined in the legislative text: this tendency often includes the attempt 
to  set  specific  percentages  for  fund  allocation.  In  fact,  detailed  provisions  in  the  basic  act 
deepen  the  ex-ante  control  of  the  co-legislators  over  budget  implementation.  Yet,  these 
provisions  overload  the  text  of  funding  programmes  with  technical  details  and  limit  the 
necessary  flexibility  in  budget  execution,  to  the  detriment  of  innovative  areas  and  better 
spending,  in  line  with  changes  in  the  economic/social  context  over  the  years.  Such  an 
approach does not take due account of the fact that the European Parliament and the Council 
anyway exercise their powers and decide over final budget allocations every year.  

The overload of detailed and technical provisions reduces flexibility in budget management 
and adds complexity into the basic acts. This would make  EU funding  accessible  only with 
difficulties for beneficiaries, rigid and ineffective. It would also put under question the role of 
the Commission as the institution accountable for the management of EU budget. These risks 
should be avoided by overcoming these stumbling blocks in the next steps of negotiations. 

11 
12 
13 
14 

COM(2011)707 
COM(2011)709 
COM(2012)496, setting common rules for 5 Funds (ERDF, ESF, CF, EARDF, EMFF) 
COM(2011)842 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2. 

A Power Game over EU Funding: What with Improved Delivery? 

2.2.1.  Delegated vs. Implementing Acts 

Across negotiations of all funding programmes, an institutional issue has arisen: the request 
by  the  European  Parliament  to  define  objectives,  priorities,  financial  allocations  and  other 
elements of budget implementation through delegated acts. Currently, these elements are part 
of the annual/multiannual work programmes, which usually constitute the financing decisions 
by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  has  proposed  that  these  elements,  being  part  of  the 
work  programme-financing  decisions  (which  is  a  pure  act  of  budget  implementation)  shall 
continue  to  be  defined  through  implementing  acts.  The  Council  supports  this  position. 
However,  the  European  Parliament  wishes  to  be  more  involved  in  the  definition  of  these 
elements.  

This could lead to two alternative options:  

– 

– 

Adoption of the work programmes through delegated acts. This option is not legally 
acceptable,  as  it  would  not  be  in  accordance  with  articles  290  and  291  of  the 
Treaties; it would alter the institutional balance and it would not be consistent with 
the  recently  revised  Financial  Regulation  which  foresees  the  adoption  by  the 
Commission of annual / multiannual work programmes. 

Introduction  of  an  intermediate  layer  of  legislation  between  the  basic  acts  and  the 
work  programmes.  Such  a  newly  added  layer  of  delegated  acts  would  define 
elements of financing in a broad way, in view of further implementation through the 
work programmes. This would risk  delaying the start of the implementation of the 
programmes, in particular for the first financing year.  

The  initial  Commission  proposals  are  legally  sound  and  they  aim  at  ensuring  efficiency, 
flexibility  and  delivery  in  EU  funding,  which  are  main  benchmarks  for  beneficiaries  and 
citizens.  

2.2.2.  Comitology 

tried 

The  Council  has 
to  enhance  Member  States'  ex-ante  control  over  budget 
implementation, by adding comitology procedures in areas not foreseen in the Commission's 
proposals. 
For example, in Horizon 202015, the funding programme for research and innovation, and in 
the  Connecting  Europe  Facility16  (infrastructure),  the  Council  has  proposed  to  apply 
committee  procedures 
legal 
commitments,  including  award  decisions18.  The  adoption  of  award  decisions  constitutes 
execution of the budget, which is an institutional prerogative of the Commission. Moreover, 
these cumbersome procedures would apply to mere administrative decisions, which should be 
adopted  by  the  authorising  officer  by  delegation  (i.e.  Commission's  Directors-General). 
Moreover,  experience  has  shown  that  these  decisions  are  not  controversial.  Comitology 
would  make  the  adoption  of  these  decisions  more  rigid,  bureaucratic,  slow  and  expensive 
(costs of meetings, translations etc.) The intervention of a committee would have no added 

to  project  selection  and 

("comitology")17 

individual 

15 
16 
17 
18 

COM(2011)810 
COM(2011)665 
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 
An average of 1400 projects per year went through comitology in FP7 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
value. Rather, it would increase the time between call and signature of grants and thus delay 
the allocation of funds.  

The  critical  importance  of  these  two  programmes  has  been  recognised  by  the  Irish 
Presidency of the Council19: avoiding cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures would be a 
practical acknowledgement of such relevance and a significant step towards full deployment 
of their value for EU economy. 

The Council has proposed to introduce committee procedures even against practical evidence. 
In  the  Home  Affairs  area,  experience  has  shown  that  it  is  important  that  funding  can  be 
mobilised rapidly and flexibly to respond effectively to unforeseen events, such as urgent or 
exceptional migratory pressure at the external borders of the Union, terrorist attacks or large-
scale cyber-attacks. This is why the Commission has proposed a separate procedure, without 
comitology, for the adoption of the work programmes for emergency assistance. The Council, 
at the request of the United Kingdom, has nonetheless proposed to apply the burdensome and 
time-consuming examination procedure.  

Financial assistance for emergency situations should be rapid and efficient; it should not be 
burdened by cumbersome procedures.  

Furthermore,  the  Council  has  proposed  to  introduce  an  option  which  prevents  the 
Commission from taking action if the relevant committee has not delivered an opinion. Such 
a clause, which could block EU financing, has been introduced without proper justification in 
many cases, for example in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP)20, in the Home Affairs 
Funds  and  in  the  programme  for  competitiveness  of  enterprises  and  small  and  medium 
enterprises (COSME)21. 

2.3. 

Simple Eligibility Rules: More Efficiency – Fewer Errors 

2.3.1. 

Single reimbursement rate and mandatory flat rate for indirect costs 

The Commission has proposed to significantly simplify EU funding by introducing a single 
rate  for  reimbursement  and  a  mandatory  flat  rate  for  indirect  costs.  The  single  rate  would 
apply  to  all  beneficiaries  under  the  same  project  action  and  the  flat  rate  for  indirect  costs 
would  apply  to  all  actions  and  to  all  types  of  participants.  Both  measures  would  avoid 
complex calculations, reporting and errors. Such an innovation is particularly relevant in the 
Horizon  2020  programme,  because  of  the  strategic  role  of  research  and  innovation  for  the 
EU  economy.  This  simplification  measure  is  also  meant  to  free  resources,  in  terms  of  time 
and energies, that can be more productively used for the action. In its opinion No 6/2012 of 
19  July  2012  the  Court  of  Auditors  endorsed  this  radically  simplified  cost-funding  model 
considering that it "would facilitate and accelerate the application process" and "decrease the 
risk of irregularities". However, this major piece of simplification has been questioned during 
negotiations: the European Parliament has opposed the single reimbursement rate as well as 
the mandatory flat rate. It proposes instead to reintroduce a differentiation between types of 
participants  in  a  project.  The  Council  has  introduced  an  exception  for  non-profit  legal 
entities. 

The Irish Presidency of the Council has recalled that "one of key objectives of Horizon 2020 
is to simplify all research and innovation funding that the EU currently provides through one 

19 
20 
21 

Programme of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 1 January-30 June 2013 
COM(2011)625; COM(2011)626; COM(2011)627; COM(2011)628 
COM(2011)834 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
single set of rules. This will make it easier for applicants to seek funding, but the approach 
will also ensure that funds invested in the programme will be used more effectively."22  

The  European  Council  in  its  above  mentioned  conclusions  has  highlighted  the  particular 
importance of simplification in the EU’s research, education and innovation programmes as a 
means of delivering a substantial and progressive enhancement of the relevant policies.  

The  single  reimbursement  rate  and  single  flat  rate  for  indirect  costs  are  key  elements  of 
simplification in research and innovation funding, in view of easier access for applicants and 
greater efficiency in delivery. 

2.3.2.  Quality of projects vs. national allocations 

In the same perspective of efficient delivery, the Commission has focused on the quality of 
projects as the core criterion for fund allocation in the environmental sector, under the LIFE 
programme23.  This  intention  is  undermined  by  the  attempt  of  the  Council  to  re-introduce 
indicative  national  allocations  of  EU  funds.  The  European  Parliament  supports  a  system 
based  on  a  public  register  to  measure  Member  States'  performance  that  could  trigger 
capacity-building  projects:  this  approach  retains  the  psychological  incentive  of  national 
allocations.  

During  negotiations,  the  Commission  has  provided  on  many  occasions  facts  showing  that 
national  allocations  have  not  led  to  a  more  balanced  distribution  of  projects.  Under  the 
current  programming  period,  national  allocations  have  reduced  the  EU  added  value  and 
affected the average quality of funded projects.  

The quality of projects should be maintained as the core criterion for EU funding: national 
allocations  do  not  guarantee  a  more  balanced  distribution  of  projects.  Rather,  they  affect 
negatively the average quality of funded projects. 

2.3.3.  Eligibility of VAT costs 

The Commission has proposed a clear rule: non-refundable VAT costs, incurred in relation to 
infrastructure  projects  in  the  ESI  Funds  and  for  projects  under  the  Connecting  Europe 
Facility, are not eligible. The reimbursement of such VAT costs would absorb a significant 
part  of  the  budgetary  envelope  of  the  programmes;  these  funds  would  be  used  more 
efficiently  if  allocated  to  the  financing  of  new  infrastructure  projects.  The  Commission 
regrets that the European Council has taken position to keep the present rule on eligibility of 
non-recoverable  VAT  in  relation  to  the  ESI  Funds  and  to  the  EUR  10  billion  contribution 
transferred from the Cohesion Fund to the Connecting Europe Facility, while this approach 
has created legal uncertainty under the current programing period. 

The  Commission  proposal  clarifying  the  VAT  eligibility  rules  is  essential  to  assure  legal 
certainty in financial planning and to maximise the contribution of the ESI Funds to growth-
enhancing investments.  

3. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Ten months remain left before the next programming period starts: time is needed to prepare 
the  new  generation  of  programmes,  particularly  under  shared  management.  The  European 

22 
23 

Programme of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 1 January-30 June 2013, page 30 
COM(2011)874 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Union  cannot  afford  a  delay  in  the  beginning  of  the  new  programmes  -  the  sectorial 
legislation should be in place as soon as possible as a matter of urgency. 

The  above  examples  show  that  critical  issues  persist  in  negotiations  with  the  European 
Parliament and the Council. These issues are often the result of different priorities: deeper ex-
ante control or influence over budget implementation, specificities in funding rules and other 
political priorities may conflict with simplification, efficient and prompt use of EU finances.  

Yet,  simplification  is  a  horizontal  priority:  it  should  be  kept  at  the  core  of  negotiations,  to 
improve  delivery  of  EU  funding,  enhance  quality  and  make  access  by  beneficiaries  easier. 
Other priorities, although relevant, should not reverse simplification, which respond to basic 
demands from beneficiaries and citizens at large.  

In this perspective, the Commission insists that the European Parliament and the Council re-
focus  on  simplification:  this  means  defending  general  and  comprehensive  texts,  avoiding 
burdensome procedures, pursuing simple funding rules and criteria. The improvement in the 
delivery of EU funds - which would result from a re-launch of the institutional co-operation 
on  simplification  -  is  crucial  at  this  juncture,  where  the  need  of  resources  for  economy, 
growth and jobs is strong and in line with the commonly shared priorities.  

For these reasons, the Commission, in pursuing its firm commitment, invites and supports the 
Irish  Presidency  of  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  to  put  simplification  at  the 
centre  of  the  next  phase  of  negotiations,  in  order  to  make  decisive  progress  in  better 
spending. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
MAIN POINTS OF THE SCOREBOARD IN ALL POLICY AREAS 

ANNEX 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

Significant work has been accomplished in the Council and the European Parliament, in cooperation with the Commission, on most of the proposals for the 
new spending programmes designed under the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF 2014-2020).  

The  importance  of  simplification  as  a  horizontal  priority  is  shared  by  the  co-legislators.  Achievements  have  been  obtained  on  some  issues  recalled  in  the 
previous Scoreboard, thanks to the co-operative attitude by the European Parliament and the Council.  

However,  simplification  is  often  put  aside  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  during  negotiations,  to  focus  on  other  priorities,  even  when  these 
priorities impinge on objectives of simplification. Some stumbling blocks persist since the latest Scoreboard; new issues have arisen meanwhile. 

The  Commission  intends  to  pursue  its  firm  commitment  on  simplification  and  will  co-operate  and  support  the  Irish  Presidency  of  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament to put simplification at the centre of next phases of negotiations. 

TOPIC 

ISSUE* 

FIRST SCOREBOARD* 

UPDATE 

*New issues and text, added to the Annex of the First Scoreboard, are underlined. 

Reduction of numbers of 
programmes 

EN 

Coherence between the common 
rules and the sector specific rules 

(Article 1 of the CPR– now ESI 
Funds) 

(COM(2011)615 final) 

The Council proposal concerning the 
Structural Funds Regulation (CPR) 
may give rise to multiple derogations 
in the sector specific rules. 

The Commission considers that 
derogations from the common rules 
in sector specific rules should be kept 
to the minimum necessary; 
otherwise, there is a risk to 
undermine the designed 
harmonization by inserting multiple 
derogations in the sector specific 
rules. In this respect, the Commission 
supports the UK Statement to seek 

10 

Still outstanding: discussions are on-
going with a view to achieving a 
common stand. 

EN 

 
  
 
"FISCUS" programme 

(COM (2011)706 final) 

Single sector framework 

Code of conduct 

(Article 5 of the ESI Funds) 

Common Strategic Framework 

enhanced harmonization of the rules 
on the Funds covered by the 
Common Strategic Framework.  

The Council and the European 
Parliament proposed to split the 
integrated programme proposed by 
the Commission for customs and 
taxation.  

The Commission maintains that an 
integrated "FISCUS" programme 
would ensure robust simplification, 
boost synergies and safeguard 
coherence in implementing 
modalities, without affecting the 
distinctive features of the two 
sectors.  

The deletion by Council of the Code 
of conduct would diminish the multi-
governance approach designed for 
more effectiveness of the cohesion 
policy. 

The use of a delegated act for the 
definition of the non-essential 
elements of the common strategic 
framework has been rejected by 
Council and Parliament; they propose 
to include these elements in the 
Annex to the legislative act. 

(Article 12 of the ESI Funds) 

The Commission has accepted to 

EN 

11 

The Programme has been split into 
two separate programmes: 
"FISCALIS 2020" and "CUSTOMS 
2020" 

The Code of conduct has been 
restored by the co-legislators. 

The Commission has submitted a 
modified proposal to include the 
common strategic framework in an 
annex to the legislative act, even if it 
believes that this framework 
concerns non-essential elements of 
the legislative act. 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
follow this approach but insists to be 
empowered to adopt a delegated act 
to complete the Annex with the more 
technical non-essential elements of 
the common strategic framework and 
to amend the Annex. This is 
necessary in order to allow for some 
flexibility in adjusting the relevant 
elements to take account of practical 
experience.  

The Council and the European 
Parliament rapporteurs want to 
include into the sector specific 
external financial instruments parts 
of the Common Implementing Rules 
Regulation applicable to all external 
financial instruments. The 
Commission will work to maintain 
the integrity of the Implementing 
Regulation, whilst ensuring a sound 
legal approach. 

The Council and the European 
Parliament have agreed to combine 
investment priorities from more 
thematic objectives, without any 
limitation in the programme. The 
Presidency, supported by the 
European Parliament, allows multi-
fund priority axes and multi-category 
of regions priority axes without 
requiring all the information per 
Fund and category of regions. 

The delegated act for some 
complementary technical elements 
and for modification of technical 
elements in the Annex is still 
opposed by the Council.  

Issue not solved. 

Issue not solved: the Commission 
considers that this undermines 
concentration, (the result oriented 
approach) and complicates 
implementation. It also creates legal 
uncertainties because such 
possibilities require adaptation of 
many legal provisions. 

Common rules for External financial 
instruments  

(COM (2011) 842 final) 

Definition of priority axis in 
Cohesion Policy 

(Art. 87 ESI Funds) 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
The Council has proposed 
arrangements which consist of a 
general rule as regards the ceiling for 
the technical assistance allocation, 
and of a series of derogations which 
to a large extent render the general 
rule void, as well as create 
difficulties in interpretation. 

Issue not solved: the Commission 
considers that multiple rules and 
derogations introduced in Council 
entail extreme complexity in 
management. 

Issue not solved: for the 
Commission, the approval of the 
Council's proposal would be a missed 
opportunity to simplify management 
and reduce administrative costs. 

General rule on technical assistance 
of Member States 

(Article 109 ESI Funds) 

Single paying agency in CAP 

(Article 7 in horizontal CAP 
Regulation) 

(COM (2011)625 final 2) 

The Council Presidency proposes to 
limit the number of paying agencies 
per Member State to "the minimum 
necessary".  

The reduction to one paying agency 
per Member State or per region has 
been proposed by the Commission in 
order to ensure further harmonization 
and simplification of the CAP 
management notably by reducing 
administrative burden and improving 
audit efficiency.  

Single coordinating national agency 
in "Erasmus for all" 

(Article 21) 

The Commission proposal for a 
single national agency per Member 
State is questioned in the European 
Parliament competent Committee.  

Issue not solved: 

The Council and the EP CULT 
Committee have introduced the 
possibility to have more than one 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
 
(COM (2011)788 final) 

national agency in accordance with 
national legislation and practice.  

The Commission does not agree with 
this approach, which reflects the 
current legal situation, as this would 
reduce the flexible use of the EU 
funds within the Member States and 
entail additional administrative work 
and costs.  

Three sector under one single 
instrument in the Connecting Europe 
Facility  

(COM(2011) 665 final 2) 

 The integrated approach of the 
Connecting Europe Facility was 
supported by the Council in the 
Partial General Approach of 7 June 
2012. 

Synergies/Mainstreaming 

Greening of direct payments in CAP 

(Articles 29-33 of the Direct 
Payments Regulation) 

(COM (2011)625 final) 

(Article 65 of the Horizontal 
Regulation) 

(COM (2011) 628 final) 

EN 

The Parliament, working under a 
joint TRAN-ITRE Committee on this 
file, shows signs of broad support to 
the instrument. 

Tendencies in Council are emerging 
which risk watering down the 
Commission proposals. Both the 
Council and the rapporteur in the 
European Parliament have suggested 
amendments aiming at limiting the 
scope of the greening requirements 
by for instance raising thresholds and 
widening definitions. According to 
the amendments suggested by the 
rapporteur of the European 
Parliament to the proposal to the 
horizontal CAP regulation, the non- 
respect of the greening requirements 
should not affect the basic direct 
payment. This would de facto render 

14 

The Council and the competent 
Committee in the European 
Parliament have accepted the single 
structure proposed by the 
Commission  

Issue not solved: the revised 
Presidency text sets out a plethora of 
different derogations, exemptions, 
approval procedures, weighing of 
(ecological focus) areas, etc. aiming 
at limiting both the scope and the 
impact of the greening requirements. 
Although exceptions/particular cases 
would limit the compliance costs of 
some farmers, they will add to the 
complexity of the legislation, in 
particular in terms of managing and 
controlling the right use of the EU 
public funds, and reduce the 
environmental impact and efficiency

EN 

 
  
 
greening voluntary for farmers.  

of greening.  

Whilst certain adaptations of the 
Commission technical proposals may 
be negotiated, the mechanisms for 
greening should remain credible in 
order to safeguard the objective of 
linking 30% of direct payments to 
environment and climate friendly 
practices. 

According to the amendments 
adopted by the EP COMAGRI, the 
aid reduction in the case of non-
compliance shall be of consequence 
only for the green payment, without 
any further reductions of other direct 
payments. Moreover, according to 
the COMAGRI amendments, 
greening shall be excluded from the 
baseline for agri-environmental-
climate measures under rural 
development. This means that 
funding under the EARDF could be 
used for farming practices that are 
already covered by the green 
payment ("double funding").  

The European Council has endorsed 
the Commission approach of 
greening and the use of 30% of the 
national ceiling for greening 
practices. It has recognized the need 
for a clearly defined flexibility for 
the Member States with regard to the 
choice of measures.  

The Commission, whilst accepting 
the need for flexibility, is against a 
tailor-made approach per Member 
State and numerous derogations 
which would complicate 
implementation 

Mainstreaming of horizontal 

Council and Parliament are 

The Council and the European 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
principles  

(Articles 7, 8 ,48, 87 of ESI Funds) 

supportive of reinforced 
mainstreaming of the horizontal 
principles of equality of treatment, 
non-discrimination, sustainable 
development and climate change. 
However, Council's proposal to give 
the Member States the power to 
assess their relevance in operational 
programmes would weaken 
mainstreaming. 

Parliament have agreed on the 
approach that empowers the Member 
State to decide whether a horizontal 
principle is relevant for a particular 
operational programme under 
cohesion policy, but that their 
assessment has to be duly justified. 
The Commission does not accept this 
approach. 

CAP - Rural development 
programme  

(COM (2011) 627 final) 

Issues not solved. 

The Council Presidency has proposed 
to exclude the EARDF from the 
scope of the general ex-ante 
conditionalities set out in the ESI 
Funds. This could result in 
different ways of assessing 
relevance of conditions, thus 
diminishing the efficient and 
effective use of the EU funds.  

Both the EP COMAGRI and the 
Council Presidency have proposed to 
allow Member States to submit 
simultaneous national and regional 
programmes. This could lead to an 
overly complex management, 
including problems from a financial 
perspective. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
Clear priority objectives and 
indicators (result oriented) 

CAP - Single Common Market 
Organisation (Single CMO) 

(COM (2011) 626) 

Minimum allocation to the ESF 

(Art.84 of ESI Funds) 

The amendments adopted by the EP 
COMAGRI maintain or extend the 
application of certain redundant or 
outdated market instruments and 
adds new market regulation tools. 
This means either a perpetuation or 
an increase in administrative costs 
and burdens for both operators and 
national administrations. 

Negotiations are on-going on this 
point. The European Parliament 
supports the Commission proposal 
and has tabled amendments to 
increase flexibility between regions. 
This could be accepted by the 
Commission. 

The European Council has stressed 
that the necessary support to human 
capital development will be ensured 
through an adequate share of the ESF 
in cohesion policy 

Council position in the CPR to delete 
the minimum allocation to 
the European Social Fund (ESF) 
would weaken the focus on 
Europe 2020 priorities for growth 
and jobs. 
The Commission insists on the need 
for the ESF to have a predictable 
budget through a minimum share in 
cohesion policy. 
This is a key to guarantee the 
necessary level of investments in 
people in order to deliver ambitious 
employment objectives, 
especially in view of the need to 
tackle levels of unemployment, 
especially youth unemployment, and 
to fight poverty and social exclusion. 
The Employment Committee in 
European Parliament strongly 
supports all of the above 
Commission proposals. 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Financing of basic infrastructures in 
more developed regions 

(Article 5 of the ERDF) 

Thematic concentration in the ESF 

(Article 4 of the ESF) 

(COM (2011) 607 final 2) 

The Council proposes to open 
financing to basic infrastructures to 
more developed regions in the areas 
of environment, transport and ICT. 
The Commission considers that 
making use of the small amounts 
available under the European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 
in more developed regions which are 
already well endowed would provide 
little economic benefit. This money 
is much more effectively used to 
directly stimulate growth and jobs in 
the less developed regions in need.  

The Council proposes to change the 
concentration mechanism of the 
European Social Fund (ESF) on the 
objective "promoting social inclusion 
and combatting poverty". A 
derogation proposed by the Council 
allowing to count ERDF amounts 
towards the objective of 20% of the 
ESF allocated to this thematic 
objective, would make the 
concentration mechanism irrelevant. 
The ERDF amounts alone, especially 
in the less developed regions could 
represent by themselves 20% of the 
ESF resources. 

Issue not solved. 

The Council and the European 
Parliament appear in agreement in 
broad terms. 

Issue not solved. The European 
Parliament strongly supports the 
Commission proposal. 

Performance framework in ESI 
Funds 

The Council has introduced changes 
to provide more flexibility to the 
Member States and sufficient 

The Council partially accepts the 
Commission's proposal 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
(Article 20 and Annex I of ESI 
Funds) 

New objectives and indicators  

Erasmus for All 
(Articles 4,5 and 11 COM (2011) 788 
final) 

safeguards to alleviate fears with 
regard to negative incentives 
(suspension of payments and 
financial corrections). The 
Commission can accept these 
proposals, but it will not accept to 
delete or weaken the negative 
incentives in order to discourage 
poor performance and unrealistic 
target setting. 

This is a horizontal issue. In many 
Commission proposals the European 
Parliament rapporteurs and in some 
cases the Council suggest adding 
multiple detailed objectives and new 
indicators, which are less specific or 
less-relevant thus weakening the 
focus on results. 

In the Council partial general 
approach all indicators have been 
removed. The Council proposes to 
define the indicators in an 
implementing act. This is not 
consistent with the other 
programmes. Indicators are normally 
a component of the legislative act, or 
should be defined through delegated 
acts. 

The European Parliament opposes 
the Commission proposal to apply 
financial corrections in cases of 
serious failure to achieve the targets 
agreed 

The issue is not solved. 

For examples of developments in 
sectorial programmes, see below. 

Indicators remain an open issue 
between the European Parliament 
and the Council, as the Council has 
deleted them from the legal basis. 
The EP CULT Committee has 
proposed to include the indicators in 
an annex to the legislative act 
modifiable by a delegated act. On 
objectives, the EP CULT Committee 
has added additional objectives not 
always consistent between 
themselves and adding complexity.  

"Creative Europe" programme  

The Council proposes to define the 

Issue not solved. 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
(Article 14 COM (2011) 785 final) 

Health programme 

(Articles 2 and 7 COM (2011) 709 
final) 

Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 

(Article 6 COM (2011) 804 final) 

The Commission maintains its 
objection to the use of implementing 
acts because they lack the necessary 
visibility and transparency, which are 
key elements to ensure full 
awareness by the stakeholders. 

Issue not solved: Council still 
proposes to increase co-financing for 
all Member States; the Commission 
proposed to limit it to Member States 
with GNI less than 90% of the EU 
average in order to increase their 
participation in joint actions and to 
take account of the small budget for 
this programme. 

The Council persists in its position. 

indicators in an implementing act. 
This is not consistent with the other 
programs. General indicators of the 
programme as a whole are a 
component of the legislative act. This 
is why the basic indicators are 
defined in the legislative text itself 
and they can be detailed in delegated 
acts. 

The objective of the programme and 
the indicators are made much broader 
and less result-oriented and as such 
lacking a direct link with the 
financial and operational capacities 
of the programme. 
The decision in the Council general 
approach to generalize the co-
financing rate up to 80% for so-
called 'joint actions' between the 
Member States (see below) and the 
contradictory extension of the 
objectives covered contribute to a 
likely dilution of the 
Programme's impact as fewer 
actions will be able to be 
financed. 

The Council has added new 
priorities; in particular, the inclusion 
of the reference to processing would 
reduce effectiveness, given the small 
size of the program compared to 
other structural instruments, the 
EMFF proposal should focus on core 

20 

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Flexible decision-making 
procedures  

Delegation of powers to Commission 
is deleted or restricted, examples: 

1.  In cohesion policy the 

criteria for designation of 
managing authorities have 
been included by Council in 
the legislative act (whereas 
delegated acts have been 
accepted by the Council in 
EMFF and the EARDF).  

2.  In ESI Funds, delegated acts 
are refused by Council in 
relation to the Common 
Strategic Framework.  

3.  In LIFE (criteria for 

geographical balance), 
Horizon 2020 (for 
performance indicators and, 
partly, for access to finance). 

The Council also seeks to 
restrict the empowerment of 
the Commission to amend 
even technical annexes in the 
form of a delegated act, ex; 
RELEX, CEF (financial 
instruments). 

The Commission has maintained its 
position to adopt or modify non-
essential elements by delegated act. 

In particular, the Commission 
considers that the amendment of 
annexes of a technical nature should 
be possible by delegated act and that 
the possibility of objection provides 
the co-legislators with necessary 
safeguards.  

areas in the fisheries and aquaculture 
sectors. 

These are horizontal issues 
encountered in many changes 
suggested by the Council and the 
European Parliament to the 
Commission proposals.  

The Council and in some cases the 
European Parliament have proposed 
to remove or restrict the scope of the 
delegation of powers to the 
Commission to adopt delegated acts 
for non-essential elements of the 
legislative act; they have suggested 
to include these elements into the 
legislative act. This approach 
burdens the legislative texts with too 
many technical details which 
complicate the readability of the 
texts, affect the accessibility of 
stakeholders and curtails the 
operational management flexibility 
which is necessary for a sound and 
effective financial management of 
EU funds or imposes lengthy 
decision making. 

Moreover, in the RELEX financial 
instruments, the flexibility introduced 
by the Commission proposals 

The need for operational flexibility is 
particularly important for the RELEX 
financial instruments, given the 
unpredictability of events in this area 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
concerning the use of unallocated 
funds, the non-substantial 
modifications to programming 
documents and financing decisions, 
and the thresholds for applying 
comitology, have been severely 
limited by the Council 

and the need for swift response. 
Depending on the outcome of the 
negotiations on delegated acts, the 
lack of flexibility in decision-making 
could render the EU action 
ineffective. 

Delegated acts vs. implementing acts 

Council has proposed in many cases, 
especially in the shared management 
areas (CAP, Cohesion Policy, 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund, Home 
Affairs Funds), the conversion of 
delegated acts into implementing acts 
ensuring the right of control by 
Member States (through comitology 
procedures). This raises questions on 
the scope and the nature of acts 
covered by Articles 290 and 291 of 
the Treaty (TFEU) and has important 
institutional consequences. 

On the contrary, the European 
Parliament often proposes the 
conversion of implementing acts into 
delegated acts which place it on 
equal footing with the Council. Such 
proposals are totally inappropriate 
with regard to annual work 
programmes which need to be 
adopted and subsequently be adapted 
swiftly to allow for timely reaction to 
changing circumstances and effective 
implementation of the programmes. 
Such delegated acts would not be in 

22 

Issue not solved. 

EN 

Issue not solved Replacement of

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
compliance with the Treaty and 
would considerably hamper 
operational implementation and 
lengthen "the time to grant and time 
to pay". They would also be totally 
inappropriate for programming 
documents under the Relex 
instruments, which require in most 
instances to be discussed and 
accorded with the beneficiary third 
countries. It has to be recalled that 
programming documents are made 
for implementing, not regulating, the 
relevant legal instruments and thus 
lack all the legal characteristics (i.e. 
the setting of general and binding 
rules within the EU legal order) 
which are required for defining a 
"delegated act". 

Council and in many cases the 
European Parliament suggest further 
breakdown of the budget in sub-
ceilings for the different activities 
and/or actions and for technical 
assistance of the programmes and to 
fix it on the level of the legislative 
act. Such proposals restrict the 
Commission capability to manage the 
budget as they deprive it of the 
operational flexibility which is 
necessary for the proper day-to day 
management of budget. They are 
totally inappropriate for programmes 
with small financial envelopes and 

23 

Issue not solved.  

The detailed breakdown of budget, 
often reproducing structure of 
previous programmes now merged, 
or earmarking parts of the budget or 
transferring elements from the 
legislative Financial Statement into 
the legal act itself, occurs particularly 
in the following programmes:  

1.  Erasmus for All 

2.  Consumer 

3.  Health for Growth 

4.  Programme for Social 

EN 

Restrictions of the budgetary powers 
of the Commission 

EN 

 
  
disproportionately rigid for the 
annual work programmes.  

In the case of European Territorial 
Cooperation (ETC), the Council has 
proposed that the combination of 
managing and certifying authority 
functions be made optional. 

The Commission has not agreed to it 
and has maintained that this should 
be mandatory, to ensure 
proportionate management structures 
for comparatively small programs 
under the European Territorial 
Cooperation and avoid duplication of 
tasks.  

Change and Innovation 

5.  Horizon 2020 

6.  Programme for 

Competitiveness of 
enterprises and Small and 
Medium Enterprises 
(COSME) 

7.  Galileo  

Issue not solved 

Issue not solved 

Comitology 

ETC  

(Article 20 COM (2011) 610 final) 

Comitology procedures added by the 
Council, whereas not foreseen in the 
Commission's proposals (examples): 

1.  Project selection and individual 
legal commitments (including 
award decisions): Connecting 
Europe Facility, Horizon 2020; 

2.  Emergency assistance –work 

programmes (Home Affairs 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
Funds)  

More burdensome comitology 
procedure than in the Commission 
proposals 

3.  "No opinion-no act" clause 
(examples): (Home Affairs 
Funds COSME, CAP) 

4.  Advisory committee procedure 
is replaced in many areas by the 
more restrictive examination 
procedure Examples: Structural 
Funds, CAP, Horizon 2020)  

Quality of projects vs. national 
allocations (LIFE Programme) 

Eligibility rules 

The issue is not solved: the 
Commission proposes to allocate 
funds on the basis of the quality of 
projects exclusively. The Council 
wants to re-introduce indicative 
national allocations for EU funds. 
The European Parliament proposes to 
set a register with indicative national 
allocation of funds, to trigger 
capacity-building projects. 

VAT in infrastructure projects:  

(Article 8 in "CEF" COM (2011) 665 
final),  

(Article 59 in ESI Funds) 

(Article 20 in the "LIFE" 
programme)  

(COM (2011) 874 final) 

Following agreement on the 
Financial Regulation (FR), providing 
for the eligibility of VAT cost, 
provided that it is not repayable and 
has been paid by a non-taxable 
within the meaning of Directives, the 
sector specific proposals, contained 
in the Connecting Europe Facility 
(CEF), the CPR for the Structural 

The European Council has 
pronounced itself for the eligibility, 
under the conditions of national VAT 
legislation, of non-recoverable VAT 
amounts incurred in relation to ESI 
Funds and the EUR ten billion 
contribution from the Cohesion Fund 
to the Connecting Europe Facility. In 
LIFE programme, it has been agreed 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
 
to align provisions on VAT costs 
eligibility with the Financial 
Regulation. 

New issue: Some Member States in 
Council have questioned the non-
eligibility of VAT costs incurred by 
public authorities acting as such, 
under the Justice Programme and 
Home Affairs Funds. 

Issue not solved 

Funds, and the LIFE Programme, 
which exclude the eligibility of VAT 
are being questioned in the Council 
and the European Parliament.  

The Commission believes that the 
non-eligibility of VAT in particular 
in infrastructure projects is 
appropriate and thus should be 
maintained in the relevant sector 
specific legislative acts. Otherwise, 
the European Union budget will be 
used to finance the national budgets, 
instead of financing more projects, 
which could be considered as in 
contradiction with the objectives and 
purpose of the financing instruments 
concerned. 

Council suggests the deletion of the 
reference to support for "direct 
marketing of fishery products for 
small scale coastal fishermen" in the 
Commission proposal concerning the 
European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund (EMFF). The European 
Parliament has indicated its support 
to the Commission proposal.  

The Commission disagrees with the 
Council proposal as support for 
small-scale fishing vessels is 
important as they often lack the 
experience, knowledge or financial 
means to engage in direct marketing. 

Marketing measures in (EMFF) 

(Article 71 in "EMFF") 

(COM (2011) 804 final) 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Single funding rate 

in "Horizon 2020" 

(Articles 22 and 24 of the Rules of 
Participation) 

(COM(2011) 810 final) 

The single reimbursement rate per 
project as well as the single flat rate 
for indirect cost are being questioned 
by the European Parliament 
rapporteur. In addition, the Council 
has introduced an exception to the 
single reimbursement rate for non-
profit legal entities. 
The Commission insists 
on its proposals contained in the 
Rules for participation in Horizon 
2020, as these issues are two 
cornerstones of the simplified 
funding rules in Horizon 2020; they 
represent the Commission's 
efforts to reduce administrative 
burden on beneficiaries and "error 
rates, allow" a lighter control strategy 
and speed up the time to grant in the 
interest of beneficiaries. 

Issue not solved: the European 
Parliament still questions the single 
funding rate; the Council supports 
the principle of a single rate but 
introduces exceptions. 

The European Parliament opposes 
the single flat rate for indirect costs 
and proposes the reintroduction of 
the actual cost method as an option, 
but the Council has accepted it. The 
European Council has underlined the 
particular importance of 
simplification in in the EU’s 
research, education and innovation 
programmes in delivering a 
substantial and progressive 
enhancement of the efficiency of the 
relevant policies 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Threshold for loan guarantees in 
COSME and Horizon 2020 

(Annex II COM(2011)834 final 

Support for knowledge transfer or 
information action 

Definition of the beneficiary 

(Article 15 of the EARDF) 

For COSME, the Programme for the 
Competitiveness of Enterprises and 
small and medium-sized enterprises, 
and Horizon 2020, regarding SME 
loan guarantees, the demarcation line 
between the two programmes have 
been modified by co-legislators. This 
change leads to an overlap in the 
scope of both programmes (loan 
guarantees below € 150,000 for 
research and innovation-oriented 
SMEs would be eligible under both 
programmes) and would result in 
significant administrative burden for 
SMEs, and dilution of budgetary 
support and loss of focus on the 
programme's objectives since a lower 
number of smaller SMEs would be 
supported. 

The revised Presidency text 
reintroduces a reference to the 
participant in the training as a 
beneficiary of support, thereby 
limiting the scope for reducing 
administrative burdens. 

The Commission considers that 
provider of the training or other 
knowledge transfer should be the 
sole beneficiary of the support. 
Administrative burdens can be 
significantly reduced if it is only the 
provider of the training, and not the 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Simplified cost methods 

A new option has been proposed by 
Council for the simplified calculation 
of staff costs by dividing the annual 
gross employment cost by 1650 
hours. 

Commission has remained reserved 
as regards this proposal in the 
absence of underlining method 
supporting it. 

In the case of ESF, Council has 
proposed that operations below 
50.000 Euros could also use flat rates 
in addition to lump sums and unit 
costs. 

The Commission would prefer the 
mandatory use solely of lumps sums 
and unit costs due to the greater 
potential for simplification.  

Average  working  time  (ESI  Funds, 
(Article 58)) 

Compulsory  use  of  simplified  costs 
for small projects  

(ESF, (Article 14)) 

Lump sum payment for small 
farmers 

(Articles 47 - 51 Direct Payments 
Regulation 

Articles 92 Horizontal Regulation) 

Small Farmer Scheme (SFS) 

participants, that have to apply for 
the support. 

Issue not solved 

The Council has accepted the 
mandatory use of lump sums or unit 
costs for small projects, as proposed 
by the Commission, and added flat 
rates thereon. The European 
Parliament agreed with the 
Commission’s proposal.  

The Commission can agree with the 
inclusion of flat rates in addition to 
other simplified cost options. 

According to both the Council 
Presidency revised text and the 
amendments adopted by the EP 
COMAGRI, the application of the 
small farmer scheme (SFS) shall be 
optional for Member States. To make 
the scheme optional would possibly 
mean a simplification for MS with a 
very limited number of small 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
 
farmers, but farmers in the Member 
States which decide to opt out will be 
deprived of the simplification 
benefits of the scheme. 

In addition to the lump-sum model 
proposed by the Commission, the 
Presidency proposes an alternative 
method for calculating the SFS lump-
sum payment, whereby farmers 
joining the SFS would be paid the 
amounts that they would normally 
have received under the other direct 
payment schemes in 2014. The 
resulting amount would remain 
unchanged in the following years.  

Issue not solved: the proposed 
method appears to be simple and 
could result in more farms being 
covered by the SFS, if kept 
compulsory for Member States. 
Financial management should 
however be reconsidered in order to 
avoid additional complexity. 

The Commission has proposed to 
replace the current models under the 
Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and 
the Single Area Payment Scheme 
(SAPS) by a basic income support in 
the form of a flat rate model at 
regional or national level in all MS. 

There is in the Council a tendency to 

Basic Payment Scheme, (Articles 18 
- 28 Direct Payment Regulation) 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
move towards an approach that 
would open the door to wide-spread 
possibilities of differentiating the 
model and the pace of internal 
redistribution. This would undermine 
the objective of having a simple and 
harmonised approach as proposed by 
the Commission. 

Proportionate control 

Audit methods for ERDF, ESF, CF 

(Article 140 ESI Funds)  

The Council has proposed 
amendments which limit 
Commission audit work to an extent 
that cannot be accepted as it risks 
undermining the Commission 
capacity to monitor the use of EU 
budget and its capability to account 
for it.  

Issue not solved 

Audit methods for ERDF, ESF, CF  

(Article 116 ESI Funds) 

The Council has proposed that 
national audit bodies in cohesion 
policy may use non-statistical 
sampling methods. The Commission 
has not accepted this proposal as it 
does not necessarily provide reliable 
and comparable information across 
Member States and thus undermines 
assurance at EU level. 

Issue not solved 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E-governance 

 E-cohesion for ERDF, ESF, CF  

(Article 112 ESI Funds) 

The Council proposes to postpone 
the deadline for the implementation 
of the E-cohesion from 2014 to 2016 
delaying by 2 years what constitutes 
a major simplification for 
beneficiaries. The Commission 
cannot accept this delay. 

Issue not solved. The Council insists 
on implementing e-cohesion from 
2016. While the discussions on the 
implementation deadline of "e-
cohesion" are on-going, the co-
legislators appear to agree that a shift 
to electronic data exchange is 
necessary to bring about a significant 
simplification for beneficiaries. The 
Commission insists on the 
application of e-cohesion no later 
than 31 December 2014 in view of 
the great potential for simplification 
of this measure. It is estimated that it 
would lead to the reduction of 11% 
of the administrative burden 
aggregated at EU level.  

EN 

32 

EN