COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL on the follow-up to 2013 discharge - Replies to requests from the European Parliament
Date: 2015-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU control, EU expenditure, budgetary control, budgetary discharge, financial year, general budget (EU)

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.10.2015  SWD(2015) 195 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL on the follow-up to 2013 discharge - Replies to requests from the European Parliament {COM(2015) 505 final} {SWD(2015) 194 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 

European Parliament resolutions on 2013 discharge 25/8/2015 ................................................ 4 

The Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance ............................................................... 5 

Revenue: GNI Based own resources .............................................................................. 11 

Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 13 

Regional policy, transport and energy ............................................................................ 23 

Employment and social affairs ....................................................................................... 35 

External relations ............................................................................................................ 42 

Research and other internal policies ............................................................................... 54 

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) ...................................................................... 63 

Administration ................................................................................................................ 66 

Getting results from the Union budget ........................................................................... 71 

Tobacco smuggling ......................................................................................................... 74 

SR 11/2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right: a more structured and 
better-focused approach would improve the effectiveness of the Commission’s 
verification ........................................................................................................ 75 

SR 13/2013 EU Development Assistance to Central Asia ............................................. 78 

SR 15/2013 Has the Environment component of the LIFE programme been effective? 80 

SR 16/2013 Taking stock of 'single audit' and the Commission's reliance on the work of 
national audit authorities in cohesion ............................................................... 81 

SR 17/2013 EU Climate Finance in the context of External Aid ................................... 83 

SR 18/2013 The reliability of the results of the Member States' checks of the 

agricultural expenditure .................................................................................... 87 

SR 1/2014 Effectiveness of EU-supported public urban transport projects ................... 92 

SR 2/2014 Are Preferential Trade Arrangements appropriately managed? ................... 96 

SR 3/2014 Lessons from the European Commission’s development of the second 

generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) ......................................... 100 

SR 4/2014 Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success 101 

SR 6/2014 Cohesion policy funds support to renewable energy generation — has it 

achieved good results? .................................................................................... 104 

SR 8/2014 Has the Commission effectively managed the integration of coupled support 
into the single payment scheme? .................................................................... 106 

SR 9/2014 Is the EU investment and promotion support to the wine sector well managed 
and are its results on the competitiveness of EU wines demonstrated? ......... 108 

SR 10/2014 The effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture ... 109 

SR 13/2014 EU support for rehabilitation following the earthquake in Haiti .............. 113 

1 

 
SR 15/2014 The External Borders Fund has fostered financial solidarity but requires 

better measurement of results and needs to provide further EU added value  117 

SR 16/2014 The effectiveness of blending regional investment facility grants with 

financial institution loans to support EU external policies ............................. 119 

SR 19/2014 EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia ..................................................... 122 

SR 21/2014 EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money ........................ 124 

Eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds ................................................ 125 

Performance, financial management and control of EU agencies ................................ 131 

Bodies set up under the TFEU and the Euratom Treaty ............................................... 136 

2 

 
INTRODUCTION 

This Commission Staff Working Paper completes the Report from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the Follow-up to the 2013. It presents in detail the 
answers to 319 specific requests made by the European Parliament in its Resolution forming 
an integral part of its Decisions on the 2013 Discharge1 

1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/cont/discharge-2013.html 

3 

 
                                                            
 
European Parliament resolutions on 2013 discharge 

4 

 
1. 

2. 

3. 

The Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance 

(§ 17 - 2013/PAR/0252) The Parliament calls on the Commission to analyse whether 
the  shift  in  methodology  from  confirmed  corrections  to  implemented  corrections, 
which  took  place  in  2012  is  best  suited  for  reflecting  the  reality  of  control  and 
management systems in a given financial year. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  provides  information  on  both  confirmed  and  implemented 
corrections  in  the  EU  annual  accounts  and  in  its  annual  Communication  on  the 
protection of the EU budget. This gives a broader view of the financial corrections' 
situation for a given financial year. 

(§  25  -  2013/PAR/0253)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States  to  put  in  place  sound  procedures  to  confirm  the  timing,  the  origin  and  the 
amount  of  corrective  measures  and  to  provide  information  reconciling,  as  far  as 
possible, the  year  in  which  payment  is  made,  the  year  in  which  the  related  error is 
detected and the year in which recoveries or financial corrections are disclosed in the 
notes to the accounts, taking into account the pluriannuality of the whole procedure. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  always  stated  that  linking  financial  corrections  to  the 
original year of payment is not feasible. 

(§ 27 - 2013/PAR/0254) The Parliament asks the Commission to further clarify the 
calculation of the amount at risk (Annex 1 to the synthesis report explains "amounts 
at risk" as the value of the fraction of the transaction which is estimated not to be in 
full conformity with the applicable regulatory and contractual requirements after the 
application  of  all  controls  (corrective  measures)  intended  to  mitigate  compliance 
risks.)    in  explaining  the  estimated  impact  of  corrective  mechanisms  on  this  figure 
and  to  issue  in  its  synthesis  report  a  proper  "Statement  of  assurance"  based  on  the 
Directors-General annual activity reports. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission further clarified the methodology for its calculation in the 2014 
Synthesis  report,  ensuring  consistency  in  the  terms  and  concepts  applied  by  the 
DGs  in  their  annual  activity  reports.  The  Synthesis  report  included  for  the  first 
time a consolidated estimation of the amount at risk for the entire budget under its 
responsibility (so not only for the part of the expenditure under reservations as it 
was the case in previous years) alongside its best estimate of the volume of errors 
and irregularities that could be corrected in the future. 

However, the Commission will not issue in its synthesis report a proper "Statement 
of  assurance".  Replacing  the  managerial  responsibility  of  the  Directors-General 
by  a  political  one  would  only  dilute  responsibility  and  weaken  the  accountability 
structure. Also, The College takes political responsibility by adopting annually the 
Synthesis  Report.  The  combination  of  AARs  and  the  synthesis  report  fulfils  the 
internal and external accountability objectives defined by the Court. 

4. 

(§ 32 - 2013/PAR/0255) The Parliament calls on the Commission and Member States 
to therefore a shift from spending to a performance culture focussing on the results 
achieved based on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness and economy. 

5 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  accepts  the  recommendation  of  the  European  Parliament.  The 
MFF  2014-2020  programmes  already  reinforce  the  performance  culture  putting 
emphasis on results achieved and the Commission aims to further strengthen the 
performance  focus  in  the  near  future.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  has 
launched two initiatives: a) the setting-up of an Inter-Institutional Working Group 
on  Performance  Base-Budgeting  to  agree  on  a  common  understanding  of 
performance  framework  of  the  EU  budget  and  b)  the  first  annual  conference  on 
'Budget focused on results' in September. A communication on 'budget focused for 
results' is planned for spring 2016. 

5. 

(§ 34 - 2013/PAR/0256) The Parliament urges the Commission to once again prepare 
and publish a 'long-range cash flow forecast' projecting future payment requirements 
to  ensure  that  necessary  payments  can  be  met  from  approved  annual  budgets; 
demands  that  the  Commission  present,  if  necessary,  modifications  to  existing 
regulations  in  the  event  that  the  annual  budgets  cannot  provide  sufficient 
appropriations to match the necessary payments level. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the recommended action.  

The  Commission  presented  in  March  2015  “Elements  for  the  payment  plan  to 
bring  the  EU  budget  to  a  sustainable  track”  which  aims  at  eliminating  the 
abnormal backlog of unpaid claims that emerged at the end of 2014.  

See Recommendation 2013/COU/0190. 

As regard long term forecasts, the Commission presented its detailed methodology 
for  forecasting  payments  for  the  2014-20  financial  framework  within  the 
framework  of  the  negotiations  of  the  MFF.  This  was  the  basis  for  fixing  the 
payment  ceilings.  The  Commission  is  regularly  reviewing  its  assumptions  to  take 
into account all new developments (adoption of the “payment plan”, preparation of 
the  2016  budget  and  the  information  included  in  the  schedules  of  payments, 
progress in adoption of the delayed programmes in the shared management, etc.).  

However,  the  most  important  variable  in  the  medium  to  long  term  forecasting 
exercise  is  the  evolution  of  interim  payment  claims  of  shared  managed 
programmes in Headings 1b, 2 and 3. A significant number of these programmes 
could  not  be  adopted  in  2014  and  had  to  be  reprogrammed.  By  end  2015,  all 
programmes  under  shared  management  shall  be  adopted.  Only  then  the 
Commission will receive Member States payment forecasts for all programmes and 
also  first  information  on  the  actual  implementation  of  the  shared  managed 
programmes  will  become  available.  This  will  allow  the  Commission  to  prepare  a 
thorough  analysis  of  the  needs  for  the  second  half  of  this  MFF  and  propose 
adjustments, if appropriate, in the framework of the mid-term review of the MFF 
in 2016 in line with the provisions of the MFF Regulation.  

Improving  the  reliability  of  forecasts  is  a  continuous  effort  by  both  the 
Commission services and the Member States. 

6. 

(§  38  -  2013/PAR/0257)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  be  more 
transparent and to  regularly report on leverage, losses and risks such  as investment 
bubbles (in the context of financial instruments). 

6 

 
Commission's response: 

As  regards  financial  engineering  instruments  supported  from  Operational 
Programmes  under  the  2007-2013  period,  Regulation  (EC)  No  1083/2006  laid 
down  limited  reporting  requirements  by  Member  States  (MS)  for  financial 
engineering  instruments;  these  requirements  do  not  include  obligatory  reporting 
on  leverage,  losses  or  number  of  enterprises  or  projects  supported.  Nevertheless, 
some  of  this  information  is  provided  by  MS  on  a  voluntary  basis  and  is  made 
available by the Commission in the annual summary of data on the progress made 
in financing and implementing financial engineering instruments. 

As  regards  financial  instruments  (FI)  to  be  supported  from  ESIF  programmes 
under  the  2014-2020  period,  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1303/2013  lays  down  detailed  reporting  requirements  on  volume  of  investment 
supported, leverage, losses and gains, resources paid back to financial instruments, 
number of enterprises supported  as well as output indicators specific to the type of 
instruments.  The  European  Commission  will  submit  on  an  annual  basis  a 
summary  report to  the budgetary authority and will make this  report available to 
the public. 

7. 

(§  38  -  2013/PAR/0258)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  give  a  full 
overview of the number of projects financed under each of the financial engineering 
instruments  and  the  results  achieved,  to  indicate  clearly  how  much  Union  budget 
allocations  were  used 
to  co-finance  these  FEI  projects  and  to  present  a 
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the instrument of FEIs compared with more 
direct forms of project funding. 

Commission's response: 

Concerning the request to give a full overview of the number of projects financed 
under  each  FIs,  in  article  49  (3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  1083/2006  an  ex-post 
evaluation of  all the  Structural  Funds is  foreseen. Within  this ex-post  evaluation 
one work-package is specifically addressing the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
financial  engineering  instruments  for  SMEs  in  the  2007-2013  programming 
period. The ex-post evaluation shall be completed by 31 December 2015.  It is also 
important  to  emphasize  that  a  cost-benefit  analysis  comparing  grants  with 
financial  instruments  would  be  of  little  added  valued  as,  even  if  grants  and 
financial  instruments  are  both  delivery  modes  of  Cohesion  Policy,  they  target 
different types of projects. 

8. 

(§ 40 - 2013/PAR/0259) The Parliament recommends, in light of the pressure on the 
budget for payments and the fact that Article 140(7) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 
966/2012  (the  Financial  Regulation)  requires  that  excessive  balances  should  be 
avoided  on  financial  instruments,  that  the  Commission  ensures  that  contributions 
from the Union budget to such instruments reflect a real cash-flow need. 

Commission's response: 

As  regards  financial  engineering 
instruments  supported  from  operational 
programmes  under  2007-2013  period,  bearing  in  mind    the  approaching  end  of 
eligibility, new contribution from the programme to such instruments (if any) will 
be inevitably linked to the immediate demand at the level of final recipients. 

As regards financial instruments supported by ESIF programmes under the 2014-
2020 period there are safeguards in the legislative framework which ensure that:  
1)  ESIF  contribution  will  reflect  market  needs  thoroughly  assessed  in  ex-ante 
assessment , and 2) ESIF contribution will be paid in phased instalments reflecting 

7 

 
the progress in implementation on the ground, hence, the ESIF contribution to the 
FIs linked to the disbursement to final beneficiaries and excessive balances on the 
accounts should be avoided. 

9. 

(§  42  -  2013/PAR/0260)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  disburse  funding 
only  when  the  funds  are  actually  needed  by  the  beneficiary  and  to  improve  its 
monitoring of the Union grant implementation. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  work  related  to  the  disbursement  of  funds  has  already  been  carried  out  (see 
responses  to  the  Court  of  Auditors'  recommendations  from  the  Special  Report 
16/2014).  As  regards  monitoring,  best  practices  have  been  elaborated  in  the 
guidelines  accompanying  the  application  form.  However,  specific  monitoring 
criteria for blending projects is under preparation. 

10. 

(§ 46 - 2013/PAR/0261) The Parliament calls for a sanction system if Member States 
transmit incorrect programme information and declarations. 

11. 

Commission's response: 

The current legislative framework does not provide for sanctions for incorrect or 
unreliable reporting. Rather, when control systems prove to be partially effective or 
ineffective  the  Commission  concentrates  on  the  existing  corrective  measures 
available  under  the  legal  framework  (suspension  or  interruption  of  payments, 
financial corrections). 

(§ 47 - 2013/PAR/0262) The Parliament calls on the Commission and the Council to 
take  concrete  and  meaningful  steps  to  enable  the  necessary  progress  in  sound 
financial  management,  including  the  increased  use  of  the  instrument  of  national 
declarations which in practice do not require much extra effort (reportedly less than 1 
full-time equivalent on a yearly basis per Member State), while also noting that it is 
of  great  importance  that  Member  States  take  political  responsibility  for  the  use  of 
Union funds by means of a public document. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  promote  this  accountability  instrument,  on  the 
basis of the recommendations and templates resulting from the inter-institutional 
working group. It will continue providing support and feedback to Member States 
who issue already or are interested in issuing a national declaration. 

12. 

(§  47  - 2013/PAR/0263)  The Parliament calls  on the Commission  and the Member 
States to publish not only the national declarations but also the annual summaries and 
management  declarations  in  order  to  give  more  insight  in  and  achieve  a  real 
improvement of the financial management. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission cannot take the requested action as it does not have the right to 
publish  national  declarations,  annual  summaries  and  management  declarations. 
This is the prerogative of the Member States. 

13. 

(§  47  -  2013/PAR/0264)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  submit  a 
recommendation  to  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  promote  the  use  of  national 
declarations in line with the recommendations by the interinstitutional working group 
for the establishment and use of national declarations. 

8 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  does  not  consider  that  the  requested  measure  will  promote  the 
use of national declarations, as the adoption of an additional act or document does 
not  have  a  binding  legal  effect.  Therefore,  it  does  not  consider  to  take  action 
related to this recommendation. 

14. 

(§  49  -  2013/PAR/0265)  The  Parliament  reiterates  its  previous  demand  that  the 
Commission evaluate and, if necessary, correct the Member States' data in order to 
establish reliable and objective annual activity reports. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has a good overview of how first level management verifications 
are performed in the Member States that gives full credibility to the annual activity 
reports drafted by its services. This overview is based on a robust and solid process 
encompassing  the  detailed  assessment  of  the  management  and  control  systems 
through 15 key requirements including on the quality of management verification, 
the  detailed  analysis  of  the  audit  opinions  and  the  national  audit  reports  the 
Commission  receives,  of  the  Commission's  own  audits  and  any  other  community 
audit. 

As  a  result  the  Commission  keeps  updating  this  assessment  of  the  key-
requirements on a bi-weekly basis. 

In  case  after  throughout  assessment  and  analysis  the  Commission  considers  that 
data  from  Member  State  are  not  correct,  this  will  be  clearly  disclosed  in  the 
respective annual activity report of its services. 

15. 

(§ 50 - 2013/PAR/0266) The Parliament requests that the Directors-General report in 
detail in their annual activity reports on the error rates notified by the Member States 
and on the corrections made by the Commission, where appropriate, at the level of 
operational programmes. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. This information was already provided by the 
DGs  for  all  operational  programmes  under  reservation.  As  from  reporting  year 
2014 this has been extended to all operational programmes. 

16. 

(§ 55 - 2013/PAR/0267) The Parliament calls for the early adoption of the Directive 
on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  already  working  on  the  requested  action.  The  2012 
Commission  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  fight  against  fraud  to  the  Union's 
financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF Directive) has been discussed in 
trilogues  since  October  2014.  The  Commission  is  fully  committed  to  see  an 
adoption  of  the  PIF  Directive  as  soon  as  possible,  however,  with  a  content 
improving  the  level  of  protection  of  the  EU  budget  currently  provided  for  by  the 
1995  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Communities'  financial 
interests  (PIF  Convention)  and  its  Protocols.  The  Commission  fully  supports  the 
co-legislators  in  finding  acceptable  compromises,  in  particular  as  far  as  the 
inclusion of VAT into the scope of the directive and the level of harmonisation of 
sanction levels are concerned. On both issues, the Commission and the European 
Parliament share similar points of view. 
9 

 
 
17. 

(§  56  -  2013/PAR/0268)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  carefully 
examine the current situation and present recommendations or even legally binding 
solutions  if  necessary;  considers  that  the  same  should  apply  to  the  candidate 
members  and  members  of  the  Commission  (in  some  Member  States,  legislation 
concerning  conflicts  of  interests  of  members  of  the  parliament,  members  of 
government and members of local councils is vague and insufficient). 

Commission's response: 

Rules  are  in  place  to  avoid  conflicts  of  interests  at  the  level  of  the  Commission. 
These apply to staff at all levels. Commissioners have to respect similar principles: 
they have to declare their interests and are bound by the provisions of the Treaties 
and Code of Conduct for Commissioners, which defines their ethical environment 
and  sets  the  guiding  principles  for  the  relations  between  Commissioners  and 
Commission departments. 

Regarding the conflicts of interests at the level of the Member States, the Financial 
regulation foresees the obligation for MS to take the necessary measures to avoid 
conflict of interest, and to report to the Commission on the systems put in place to 
ensure their avoidance. Still, a legally binding EU solution is not foreseeable as the 
avoidance of conflict of interest at national level lies within the competence of MS. 

10 

 
Revenue: GNI Based own resources 

18. 

(§ 58 - 2013/PAR/0269) The Parliament demands that the Commission to ensure that 
Eurostat's and Member States' data are identical, as the indicator of GNI represents 
the key benchmark not only for Union revenue but also for expenditure. 

Commission's response: 

The  GNI  data  used  for  Own  Resources  purposes  is  provided  to  Eurostat  by 
Member States according to Regulation 1287/2003. Both data sets are by definition 
identical. 

19. 

(§ 65, 1st indent - 2013/PAR/0270) The Parliament urges the Commission to shorten 
the  duration  of  its  verification  cycle  of  the  GNI  data  used  for  own  resources  to  a 
maximum  four  years,  if  needed,  in  launching  infringement  proceedings  and/or  in 
imposing strict delay to lift the reservations. 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to Recommendation  n° 2 to the European Court of Auditors 
Special  Report  No  11  2013  Getting  the  Gross  National  Income  (GNI)  data  right  A  more 
structured and better-focussed approach would improve the effectiveness of the Commission’s 
verification. 

20. 

(§ 65, 2nd indent - 2013/PAR/0271) The Parliament urges the Commission to limit 
the use of general reservations to exceptional cases where there are significant risks 
that the financial interests of the Union are not protected: i.e. when a Member State 
carries out a major revision during the verification cycle or at irregular intervals. 

Commission's response: 

A  new  annex  to  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  DG  Budget  and 
Eurostat  was  signed  in  April  2013;  this  will  reduce  significantly  the  number  of 
general  reservations.  Yet  they  remain  essential  to  ensure  the  EU’s  financial 
interests are protected and cannot be foregone completely. 

21. 

(§ 65, 3rd indent - 2013/PAR/0272) The Parliament urges the Commission to draft 
an  action  plan  to  remedy  the  deficiencies  detected  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  its 
Special  Report  No  11/2013  and  to  report  on  it  to  Parliament  and  the  Court  of 
Auditors by the end of June 2015. 

Commission's response: 

An action plan was submitted to the Parliament and the Court of Auditors on 30 
June 2015 (ref: Ares(2015)2777865) 

22. 

(§ 65, 4th indent - 2013/PAR/0273) The Parliament urges the Commission to put in 
place  and  closely  monitor  a  detailed  action  plan  with  clear  targets  to  address  the 
problems in the compilation of Greece's national accounts. 

Commission's response: 

A  comprehensive  action  plan,  the  Joint  Overall  Statistical  Greek  Action  Plan 
(JOSGAP), aimed at resolving the deficiencies in the Greek Statistical System has 
existed  since  2010.  This  consists  of  a  large  number  of  detailed,  targeted  and 
monitored  actions,  including  in  the  area  of  national  accounts.  Under  this 
programme there have been many visits of experts to advise the national accounts 
department  of  the  Hellenic  Statistical  Authority  (ELSTAT);  recently  there  has 
been  a  focus  on  the  specific  issue  of  the  resolution  of  particular  problems 

11 

 
concerning GNI data. Please see response to recommendation n°2 to the European 
Court of Auditors 2013 Annual Report. 

23. 

(§  65,  5st  indent  -  2013/PAR/0274)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
introduce  a  modification  to  the  abovementioned  Commission  proposal  COM 
(2014)0704 in order to empower the Commission to defer the reimbursement of the 
amounts in case of "negative" balances and adjustments. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  currently  examining  possible  amendments  to  the  existing 
provisions in view of modifying the treatment of VAT and GNI balances. 

12 

 
Agriculture 

24. 

(§ 68 - 2013/PAR/0275) The Parliament calls on the Commission to re-examine the 
agricultural budget support in light of this (the measures initiated by the Commission 
in agricultural policy have so far been unable to correct the demographic imbalance). 

Commission's response: 

In  2010  7.5%  of  EU-27  farmers  were  under  35,  while  53%  were  over  55.  But  in 
2007 only 6.3% of EU-27 farmers were under 35. Between 2007 and 2010 the ratio 
of old to young farmers moved from 9:1 to 7:1.  

This means that the agricultural sector in the EU is still characterised by an aged 
and  in  many  Member  States  ageing  -  farming  population,  though  recently  there 
have been signs of improvement. 

In its proposal for the latest CAP reform, the Commission had acknowledged the 
necessity  to  tackle  generation  renewal  issues  in  agriculture  and  had  presented  a 
proposal  for  a  mandatory  payment  for  young  farmers  in  the  framework  of  the 
direct payments.  

Despite  Council's  strong  opposition  against  a  mandatory  payment  for  young 
farmers under direct payments system, the final political agreement provided that 
the  payment  remained  mandatory.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  payment  for  young 
farmers  is  to  be  implemented  from  2015  and  it  is  too  early  to  conclude  about  its 
effect. 

In addition, there is a wide range of support measures for young farmers under the 
new  RD  policy  (e.g.  business  start-up  aid  for  YF  subject  to  a  business  plan,  a 
higher  support  of  up  to  90%  for  investments  in  physical  assets,  support  for 
information, advice and training, for cooperation activities, etc.). 

25. 

(§  71  - 2013/PAR/0276)  The Parliament calls  on the Commission  and the Member 
States to better balance their beneficiaries' structure. 

Commission's response: 

The  recommendation  should  be  more  precise,  as  it  is,  the  Commission  cannot 
identify what a "better balance" would be. 

26. 

(§  71  -  2013/PAR/0277)  The  Parliament  demands  that  the  Director-General  of  DG 
AGRI attach yearly to its annual activity report indicative figures on the distribution 
of  CAP  direct  aid  payment  to  producers  by  Member  States  and  category  of 
beneficiaries. 

Commission's response: 

report  on  direct  payments 

An  annual 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/beneficiaries/direct-aid/pdf/annex2-
2013_en.pdf)  and  available  on  the  Internet  site  of  DG  AGRI.  Therefore,  the 
Commission believes there is no need to give additional reporting in the AAR. 

is  already  published 

(see 

27. 

(§ 75 - 2013/PAR/0278) The Parliament requests that the Commission report by the 
end of 2015 on how these simplification measures worked out in practice and which 
additional measures could be taken with regard to any remaining complex rules and 
eligibility conditions. 

13 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  launched  a  simplification  exercise  for  the  CAP  and  will 
present  its  results  before  the  end  of  2015  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council. 

28. 

(§  86  -  2013/PAR/0279)  The  Parliament  calls  for  Union  officials  to  increase 
supervision  and  to  monitor  and  coordinate  more  closely  national  paying  agencies 
within the relevant Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission gives the highest priority to the exercise of its responsibilities for 
implementing the budget under Article 274 of the EC Treaty. 

The  supervisory  and  monitoring  role  of 
the  Commission  under  shared 
management  for  agricultural  funds  has  been  reinforced  through  new  preventive 
instruments  (e.g.  reductions  and  suspensions  for  both  EAGF  and  EAFRD  and 
interruptions for EAFRD) made available under the new CAP legal framework.  

Moreover,  the  Commission  has  implemented  actions  to  increase  the  effectiveness 
of  first-level  verifications  in  the  national  paying  agencies, which  are  the  primary 
line of defence against errors. In that respect, the Commission organised seminars 
for managing and paying authorities for the identification of root cause of errors, 
including public procurement seminars, and guidance for on-the-spot checks.  

The  Commission  made  significant  efforts  to  improve  the  guideline  on  financial 
corrections and key and ancillary controls. 

Furthermore, continuous guidance has been offering to the Certification Bodies in 
order to prepare their readiness for the new reporting expectations on the legality 
and regularity as from financial year 2015. 

29. 

(§  89  -  2013/PAR/0280)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  ensure  that 
financial risks for the budget are covered by net financial corrections. 

Commission's response: 

Any time a risk to the budget for agricultural expenditure is identified immediate 
actions  are  taken  in  order  to  cover  it  through  conformity  clearance  procedure 
which will claw back the unduly spend amounts.  

Reading  this  recommendation  in  the  context  of  the  paragraph  89,  notably  the 
deficiencies  detected  in  LPIS,  the  ECA  acknowledged  that  notwithstanding  the 
weaknesses in the LPIS and administrative checks, the IACS makes a significant 
contribution to reducing the error rates in the expenditure it covers (see § 3.29 of 
the ECA's Annual Report 2013).  

Since 2007, the persistent weaknesses established during DG AGRI's audits led to 
action plans being initiated in 7 Member States (3 have been already completed). 
Independently  of  these  specific  action  plans,  as  part  of  normal  procedure,  when 
audit findings show weaknesses Member States are to take actions to address the 
situation. 

In all cases, for the years prior to the finalisation of the plan, the risk for the Fund 
has  been  covered  via  the  application  of  net  financial  corrections  and  net 
recoveries. 

30. 

(§ 92 - 2013/PAR/0281) The Parliament calls on the Commission to make a detailed 
analysis  of  this  situation  (the  Court  of  Auditors'  findings  as  regards  the  fact  that 

14 

 
Italian  authorities  did  not  record  whether  debts  were  due  to  irregularities  or 
administrative errors which could potentially lead to charging the Union budget) and 
report back before the end of the year. 

Commission's response: 

In DG AGRI  AAR 2014 (Annex 10, Part  5) the  Commission  has reported on the 
progress made with the Italian authorities to address the deficiencies in the debts' 
management by the end of 2015. It will continue to up-date the information in the 
following AARs. 

The Commission would like to stress that the deficiencies in the irregularities' and 
debts  management  in  Italy  are  followed  up  in  the  context  of  a  number  of 
conformity  clearance  procedures.  The  on-going  conformity  clearance  procedures 
will protect the EU budget through net financial corrections. 

31. 

(§ 110 - 2013/PAR/0282) The Parliament recommends that the Commission actively 
monitors  the  application  of  remedial  actions  with  regard  to  the  deficiencies  in  the 
control  system  applicable  to  Union  aid  for  the  recognition  of  producer  groups  for 
fruits  and  vegetables  in  Poland,  and  in  the  operational  programmes  for  producer 
organisations in Austria, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  always  monitors  the  action  plans  and  remedial  actions  put  in 
place and reports on them in its AAR. DG AGRI reported in the AAR 2014 (Annex 
10, part 3.2) on the follow-up of the remedial actions. 

• 
The 2013 reservation for pre-recognition of producer groups in Poland was 
maintained in the AAR 2014 considering the implementation of an on-going action 
plan which will be closely monitored during 2015.  

• 
The  system  deficiencies  in  the  operational  programmes  for  producer 
organisations  in  Austria,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom  are  currently 
addressed through on-going action plans. The conformity clearance procedure will 
ensure that the financial risk to the EU budget is covered. The reservations for the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom are carried over. 

32. 

(§ 111 - 2013/PAR/0283) The Parliament urges the Commission to demonstrate the 
Union added value of the agricultural market measures. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  demonstrated  the  added  value  of  the  agricultural  market 
measures in the impact assessment for the proposal on the new Common Market 
Organisation,  eventually  adopted  by  the  legislator  on  17  December  2013.  The 
Commission  adopted  also  in  March  2014  a  report  on  one  of  the  most  relevant 
market  policies,  namely  on  the  provisions  on  the  fruits  and  vegetables  regime 
(reference:  COM(2014)112  final).  In  this  report  there  are  recommendations  to 
improve  the  added  value  and  to  address  the  shortcomings  of  the  current  support 
scheme. This report has been discussed with member states and with the EP and it 
will be a basis to further improvements of the scheme. 

33. 

(§ 111 - 2013/PAR/0284) The Parliament asks the Commission to report in the 2013 
Commission discharge follow-up report on the actions taken by the European Anti-
Fraud Office in light of the audit mission for poultry export refunds in France. 

15 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  already  working  on  the  requested  action.  The  OLAF 
investigation  report  for  this  case  is  currently  in  the  process  of  being  finalised. 
Within the limits of confidentiality, the Commission will inform the Parliament on 
the actions undertaken by OLAF. 

34. 

(§ 112 - 2013/PAR/0285) The Parliament asks to the Commission to draft proposals 
with a view to sanctioning false or incorrect reporting by paying agencies including 
the  three  following  dimensions,  namely  inspection  statistics,  statements  by  the 
paying agencies, and the work carried out by the certification bodies. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  concerned  about  allegations  of  "false"  or  "incorrect" 
reporting by Paying Agencies and Certification Bodies, as it is not aware of cases 
where the Member States provided false information to the Commission; Member 
States  appear  to  simply  provide  the  actual  results  of  their  actual  controls.  The 
control systems may be deficient but this does not mean that the reporting is false 
or  incorrect.  To  manage  the  problem  of  errors  going  undetected  by  the  Member 
States,  DG  AGRI  systematically  adjusts  the  error  rate  in  all  cases  where  there  is 
evidence that the control system is deficient. 

The  Financial  Regulation  (Article  59.6  of  R.  966/2012)  does  not  provide  for 
sanctions  against  Member  States  in  case  of  incorrect  reporting,  but  only  for 
corrections  in  case  the  applicable  rules  were  breached.  Changes  such  as  those 
recommended  by  the  Committee  would  necessitate  a  review  of  the  Financial 
Regulation.  

The  Commission  has  already  at  its  disposal  a  series  of  corrective  measures 
available under the legal framework which can be used as sanctions for the paying 
agencies  in  case  their  control  systems  is  partially  effective  or  ineffective: 
conformity  clearance  procedures  to  estimate  the  amount  at  risk  and result  in  net 
financial  corrections  that  protect  the  EU  budget,  and  reservation  in  the  ARR 
triggering remedial actions by the Member States and, where remedial actions are 
not implemented, suspension/reduction of the payments to the Member State. 

35. 

(§ 112 - 2013/PAR/0286) The Parliament asks that the Commission be empowered 
to  withdraw 
in  cases  of  grave 
misrepresentations. 

the  paying  agencies 

the  accreditation  of 

Commission's response: 

Granting  and  withdrawal  of  accreditation  is  under  shared  management  the 
responsibility of Member States. Empowerment to the Commission in this respect 
would  imply  a  modification  in  the  Horizontal  Regulation.  Nevertheless,  the 
Commission takes the view that new powers to withdraw accreditation in cases of 
"grave  misrepresentations"  would  not  solve  the  problem  because  there  does  not 
appear  to  be  misrepresentation,  but  only  deficient  controls.  Withdrawing 
accreditation in case of deficient controls would be rather counter-productive as it 
would not address the fundamental issue of the deficiencies in the control systems. 
The  Commission  therefore  prefers  focusing  on  assisting  the  Paying  Agencies  to 
improve their control systems. 

36. 

(§ 113 - 2013/PAR/0287) The Parliament urges the Director-General of DG AGRI to 
consider  the  real  added  value  of  delaying  year  after  year  reservations  justified  by 
deficiencies in the LPIS while those deficiencies have clear horizontal dimension. 
16 

 
Commission's response: 

The  assertion  that  reservations  are  delayed  "year  after  year"  in  the  AAR  is 
factually  incorrect.  Reservations  justified  by  the  deficiencies  in  LPIS  are  not 
"delayed", but they are carried over until the corrective actions are considered as 
implemented  and  the  risks  reduced.  In  the  meantime  the  conformity  clearance 
procedures  and  the  resulting  financial  corrections  will  systematically  cover  the 
financial damage to the EU budget. 

The time and the financial cost required to up-date LPIS as part of an action plan 
should not be underestimated. The following aspects have to be kept in mind when 
assessing an action plan for LPIS: 

– 
The  fact  that  there  is  an  action  plan  means  usually  that  for  a  number  of 
years a Member State has not updated its LPIS. In general, remedial action means 
almost  starting  from  scratch,  whereby  little  (old)  available  source  material  (i.e. 
imagery) can be "used". 

The  fact  that  there  is  an  action  plan  means  usually  that  for  many  years  a 
– 
Member State has not updated its LPIS. In general, remedial action means almost 
starting from  scratch, whereby little (old)  available source material  (i.e. imagery) 
can be "used". 

– 
For a renewed LPIS to be effective for year N, it needs to be "ready" before 
1.3. of  year N at  the  very  latest. Not  meeting this  deadline means farmers  do not 
have  the  renewed  information  available  for  lodging  their  claim,  which  de  facto 
means shifting the full use of the renewed plan to the next year.   

– 
Considering the level of payments and the (detailed) conditions under which 
payments  are  granted  the  level  of  accuracy  requested  by  the  legislator  regarding 
the  LPIS  is  calling  for  highly  accurate  imagery  and  skilled  expertise  of  the  staff 
involved. 

Developing an LPIS requires action on: 

– 

Acquisition of imagery and making it fit for use 

For  the  acquisition  of  the  imagery,  Member  States  have  the  option  to  perform  / 
contract  their  own  flights  or  purchase  off-the-shelf-available  imagery.  Whatever 
their  choice,  Member  States  need  to  ensure  that  the  imagery  is  to  the  required 
standard and, when deciding to purchase off-the-shelf imagery, sufficiently recent. 

Interpretation  of  the  imagery  i.e.  defining  the  maximum  eligible  area  for 

– 
each reference parcel 

Once  imagery  is  available,  the  maximum  eligible  area  for  each  reference  parcel 
has to be determined. This means: defining the boundaries of the reference parcel, 
delineating  the  ineligible  features  inside  it  and  ascertaining  its  land  cover. 
Subsequently, it is important that for those parcels where the photo-interpreter has 
a doubt i.e. (s)he cannot determine if a specific area is (in)eligible, there is a field 
visit instigated to confirm the situation. 

– 

Use of the new information in the Administration and Payment system. 

The whole process described above is subject to a quality check if the deliverable 
can be accepted or not. If a predefined level of error is found during this check, the 
whole batch needs to be reviewed. Once the information is then finally accepted by 
the  administration  and  available,  a  procedure  (i.e.  the  new  information  is 
compared  with  previous  years'  claims)  needs  to  be  instigated  to  evaluate  retro-
actively over-claimed amounts (ie the risk for the Fund).  

17 

 
 
 
For  example,  France  opted  to  work  with  self-supplied  aerial  images  (fly  its 
country). Assuming that  all source information would  be  ready and available for 
the  whole  of  the  Country,  and  counting  only  1  minute  to  digitise  a  reference 
parcel, for the total ±6.000.000 reference parcels that need to be looked at it would 
take 100 staff working full-time for about 8 months to finalise the work.  

This  is  without  taking  into  account  time  needed  for  overflying  the  Country, 
preparing the imagery, changing national instructions to ensure compliance with 
EU-rules, confirming the changes with farmers etc. 

This  means  that  for  France  with  a  plan  established  in  November  2013,  starting 
work on LPIS in beginning of 2014 and finalisation to be achieved in early 2016 
(with the majority of  actions finalised  in 2015),  considering the  work to  be done, 
the timing is as such not abnormal. Until this work is assessed as being correctly 
implemented,  DG  AGRI  will  continue  to  monitor  progress,  take  action  where 
considered necessary, and reports in the AAR. 

37. 

(§  114  -  2013/PAR/0288)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  IACS  is  used  to  its  full 
potential,  and  in  particular  to  ensure  that  the  eligibility  and  size  of  agricultural 
parcels are correctly assessed and recorded by the Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  shares  the  ECA's  view  that  IACS  makes  a  significant 
contribution to  reducing the  error rates  in the expenditure  it covers.  At  the  same 
time,  the  Commission  is  aware  that  most  critical  issues  concerned  permanent 
pasture  in  a  limited  number  of  Member  States.  The  Commission  has  asked  the 
Member States to put in place action plans in all cases when systemic deficiencies, 
and thus risks for the fund, were identified, while in other cases the Member States 
themselves  initiated  the  corrective  actions.  The  Commission  closely  monitors  the 
implementation  of  the  action  plans;  additional  resources  have  been  allocated  for 
this  purpose.  DG  AGRI  reports  in  its  AAR  on  all  preventive  and  corrective 
measures implemented in the year concerned. 

38. 

(§  115  - 2013/PAR/0289)  The Parliament urges the Commission to shed a light  on 
the  facts  reported  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  Ireland  and  Italy  in  points  3.24  and 
3.25  of  its  Annual  Report  for  2013  as  regards  irregularities  in  recovering  undue 
payments,  to  take  the  necessary  corrective  measures  and  to  report  on  those  to 
Parliament by June 2015. 

Commission's response: 

DG AGRI dully considered these deficiencies in its risk analysis and carried out an 
audit mission in Italy in September 2014 (a final position regarding the financial 
correction to be applied can probably be taken by the end of 2015) while an audit 
to  Ireland  will  take  place  in  the  2015-2016  audit  year  (DG  AGRI  will  be  able  to 
conclude on the situation in the second semester 2016).  

The Commission has disclosed more information about the progress monitoring of 
the  corrective  actions  for  debts'  management  in  Ireland  and  Italy,  in  DG  AGRI 
AAR 2014 (see Annex 10 – Part 5). The Commission considers it is not necessary 
to issue an additional report by June 2015 (the information disclosed in the AAR 
2014 remain valid by that date). 

39. 

(§  116  -  2013/PAR/0290)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  take  steps  to 
further  reduce  the  backlog  of  open  audit  files  in  the  clearance  of  the  accounts 

18 

 
procedure so as to enable all audits carried out prior to 2012 to be closed by the end 
of 2015. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission would like to emphasise that at the end of 2013, there were 542 
audits on-going. The number was reduced to 315 at the end of 2014 (representing 
a decrease of 48% in the number of backlog files). The backlog is  expected to be 
fully under control by end 2016. 

In  the  Implementing  Regulation  No  90/2014,  the  Commission  lays  down  new 
mandatory  deadlines  for  the  conformity  clearance  procedure  which  will  ensure 
that procedures launched from 2015 onwards are carried out in a timely manner. 
For  procedures  opened  in  2012  and  before,  a  specific  "backlog"  indicator  was 
established  with  interim  milestones  for  finalisation  of  procedures  which  so  far 
have been met and even exceeded.  

The  Commission  has  dedicated  specific  resources  to  tacking  backlog  cases  and 
continues  to  address  the  issue  of  open  files  as  a  high  priority.    For  the  specific 
backlog identified (cases open from 2012 and before), clear interim  targets were 
established  which  so  far  have  been  met  and  exceeded  and  the  Commission  is  on 
schedule to close all cases within the targeted deadline. 

40. 

(§ 117 - 2013/PAR/0291) The Parliament asks in particular that the mandate of the 
Members  of  the  conciliation  body  involved  in  the  clearance  of  accounts  procedure 
will  be  limited  in  time  to  an  initial  term  of  three  years  possibly  prolonged  for 
maximum one year. 

Commission's response: 

The terms and duration of the mandate of the members of the Conciliation bodies 
were set out in regulation n°885/2006, article 13, in particular its paragraph 2. The 
article  stated  that  members  of  the  Conciliation  body  are  appointed  for  an  initial 
term  of  office  of  three years, renewable one year at  a time afterwards. The same 
provisions have  been maintained under  Regulation n°928/2014,  article 37, which 
apply from 1 January 2015. 

There is no limit on the number of one-year renewals, as long as the Committee on 
Agricultural funds is informed and the member fulfils all the necessary conditions, 
in  particular  of  independence  (article  38  of  Regulation  n°928/2014)  ,  to  be 
appointed.  

The  duration  of  the  appointment  (e.g.  3  +  2  or  3  years)  has  never  caused  any 
problem. On the contrary, the experience that members build up with the years is 
regarded  as  an  asset  to  their  work.  It  allows  the  members  to  go  back  to  previous 
cases and foresees in the need of having an 'institutional memory'. 

41. 

(§  117  -  2013/PAR/0292)  The  Parliament  requests  furthermore  that  any  possible 
conflicts of interest be avoided in the handling of those files (open audit files in the 
clearance of the accounts procedure) and that the Member States are not represented 
in the conciliation body when they are directly concerned by financial corrections. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has no reason to question the independence of the Conciliation 
body or of its individual members. The President and the members are independent 
from  the  Commission  and  from  the  Member  States.  They  are  appointed  on  the 
basis  of  their  expertise  in  the  field  and  do  not  represent  any  national  or  EU 

19 

 
institution or a particular Member State, in accordance with articles 38 and 39 of 
Regulation n° 908/2014. 

A newly appointed member is required at the first meeting of the Body at which he 
or  she  is  present,  to  confirm  not  to  take  part  in  the  work  of  the  Body,  or  sign  a 
report, concerning cases for which the member has or has had a direct or indirect 
responsibility. 

More specifically, members abstain from cases 

relating 

to  a  paying  agency  or  management  authority  (including 
• 
coordination  or  certification  bodies)  in  which  the  member  worked  during  the  5 
years prior to being appointed, 

relating to a Member State , in which the member worked during the period 
• 
of  5  years  in  a  central  authority  in  which  he  or  she  had  responsibility  for  the 
implementation, or overseeing the implementation, of measures under the CAP, or 

in which the member has or has had otherwise any involvement or personal 

• 
interest. 

The confirmation is recorded in the minutes of the meeting and communicated to 
the Director General of DG AGRI by note from the President of the Conciliation 
Body. 

Should  otherwise  a  doubt  about  the  independence  of  a  member  occur,  the 
President  would  raise  the  issue  with  the  member  and  decide,  in  the  light  of  the 
information  obtained,  whether  the  member  can  take  part  in  the  proceedings 
concerning the case in question. 

42. 

(§ 118 - 2013/PAR/0293) The Parliament asks to the Commission to report in detail 
to Parliament on the implementation of the capping in CAP direct payments Member 
State per Member State. 

Commission's response: 

Information  on  the  implementation  of  the  reduction in  Direct  payments  provided 
for  in  art  11  of  regulation  1307/2013  has  already  been  made  available  on  DG 
AGRI's 
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-
payments/docs/implementation-decisions-ms_en.pdf) in the framework of the usual 
reporting on Direct payments 

website 

43. 

(§  119  -  2013/PAR/0294)  The  Parliament  calls  for  a  less  bureaucratic  CAP  with  a 
view to reducing the error rates. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  launched  a  simplification  exercise  for  the  CAP  and  will 
present  its  results  before  the  end  of  2015  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council.  

The  focus  in  2015  is  on  changes  that  can  be  implemented  quickly.  Further 
changes, in particular to the basic acts, will depend on decisions to be taken by the 
co-legislators. 

44. 

(§  119  -  2013/PAR/0295)  The  Parliament  calls  for  persistently  underperforming 
paying agencies to be stripped of their accreditation in extreme cases. 

20 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  not  empowered  under  shared  management  to  grant  and 
withdraw  accreditation;  this  remains  solely  under  the  responsibility  of  Member 
States.  

However,  under  its  supervision  responsibilities,  the  Commission  checks  on  a  risk 
basis that the paying agencies complies with the accreditation criteria set in Annex 
1  to  Regulation  n°  907/2014  and,  where  necessary,  requests  the  Member  State 
concerned to take remedial actions and  put the paying agency under probation. In 
the meantime the conformity clearance procedure protects the financial interest of 
the EU. 

45. 

(§ 120 - 2013/PAR/0296) The Parliament calls on the Commission to present in due 
time a detailed plan for reducing red tape in the CAP by 25 % within the following 
five years. 

Commission's response: 

While  the  Commission  is  committed  to  simplification  of  the  CAP  (see  reply  to 
recommendation  19),  this  process  is  based  on  a  consultation  of  all  stakeholders 
and  it  is  not  possible  to  pre-judge  the  measures  that  will  be  implemented. 
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that a large part of the management of the 
CAP  falls  upon  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  has  therefore  no  say  in 
their administrative arrangements. 

46. 

(§ 122 - 2013/PAR/0297) The Parliament recommends that the Commission ensure 
that the Member States' action plans in rural development are completed by including 
all regions and measures within their scope. 

Commission's response: 

Action  plans  under  implementation  in  the  Member  States  are  continuously 
monitored by the Commission and discussed in detail with the MS authorities. The 
completeness and effectiveness of the action plans is notably taken on board in all 
Annual  Review  meetings  and  Monitoring  Committees  with  the  Managing 
Authorities.  

The  result  of  DG  AGRI's  assessment  of  the  follow  up  is  discussed  with  Member 
State's  managing  authorities  and  paying  agencies  in  the  framework  of  periodic 
seminars. The main goal is to take stock of the overall situation, inform about new 
findings  from  audits,  verify  and  validate  the  achieved  results  and  propose 
reflection and good practices on certain topics. 

 DG AGRI  reports in  its AAR on its  evaluation of  the  completeness  of the  action 
plans. 

47. 

(§ 123 - 2013/PAR/0298) The Parliament asks the Commission about the follow-up 
given  the  cases  of  suspected  intentional  infringement  reported  by  the  Court  of 
Auditors to OLAF. 

Commission's response: 

OLAF  opened  2  cases  as  a  result  of  information  communicated  to  it  by  the 
European Court of Auditors in relation to the rural development measure "adding 
value to agricultural and forestry products". 

"Council  Regulation  1698/2005  setting  out  the  measure  "adding  value  to 
agricultural  and  forestry  products"  and  its  implementing  rules  laid  down  in 

21 

 
Commission  Regulation  1974/2006  were  repealed  as  from  1  January  2014. 
However, the Commission takes into account the Court of Auditors' findings when 
planning  its  conformity  clearance  activities  in  order  to  check  Member  States 
management and control systems and protect the EU budget." 

48. 

(§  123  -  2013/PAR/0299)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  fully  review  the 
design of this measure in the light of the critical remarks in the follow-up report to 
the 2013 Commission discharge. 

Commission's response: 

As  regards  the  rural  development  measure  'adding  value  to  agricultural  and 
forestry products', it has been amended in the new regulatory framework for 2014-
2020 (for details see Reg. 1305/2013). 

49. 

(§ 124 - 2013/PAR/0300) The Parliament urges the Commission to closely monitor 
the  implementation  of  the  rural  development  programmes  and  in  its  conformity 
audits to take account of the applicable rules including those adopted at national level 
where relevant. 

Commission's response: 

Audit  findings,  covering  both  EU  and  national  rules,  are  systematically  followed 
up in the conformity clearance procedure. Any source of error attributable to the 
national implementing rules triggers a request to the Member State  concerned to 
take immediate remedial actions. Lessons extracted from the implementation of the 
programmes  and  national  rules  thereof,  will  be  shared  through  the  ENRD  and 
dedicated seminars on error rates. 

The responsibilities of the Member States have been enhanced under the new legal 
framework by requiring both Managing Authorities and Paying Agencies to assess 
the verifiability and controllability of the measures in their new Programmes. The 
new  legal  framework  for  CAP  2014-2020  contains  also  provisions  which  reduce 
risk  of  error.  Various  measures  have  been  merged  and  streamlined.  Provisions 
have  been  clarified,  eligibility  rules  have  been  modified  in  order  to  be  easier  to 
implement and contract conditions have been made more flexible. Simplified costs 
options, i.e. standard scales of cost units, lump sums and flat-rate financing can be 
the  processes  of  claiming,  administering  and  auditing 
applied  so 
reimbursement for payments made will be easier for everyone. 

that 

22 

 
Regional policy, transport and energy 

50. 

(§  132  -  2013/PAR/0301)  The  Parliament  underlines  that  the  Commission  should 
ensure that it obtains consistent and reliable information from the Member States on 
the  use  of  ERDF's  funding  and  considers  that  this  information  should  indicate  the 
Operational  Programmes'  progress,  not  only  in  financial  but  also  in  performance 
terms (see Court of Auditors' Special Report No 20/2014, point 68). 

Commission's response: 

For  the  2007-2013  period,  the  Commission  requires  the  managing  authorities  to 
report on the implementation of the programmes in line with the applicable ERDF 
regulations. 

However, the 2014-2020 ESIF programmes have been designed to put a stronger 
emphasis  on  results  based  on  targets.  At  priority  axis  level  the  indicators  will 
capture the overall performance in the axis, but not the individual performances of 
all types of action that might be included in that axis.   

See also replies to 2013/PAR/0261 and 2013/PAR/0321. 

51. 

(§ 137 - 2013/PAR/0302) The Parliament asks the Commission to report in future all 
details in changes of error rates made by DG REGIO. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  recalls  that  this  information  was  provided  by  the  directorates-
general for all operational programmes in their 2014 AARs. 

52. 

(§ 138 - 2013/PAR/0303) The Parliament asks the Commission to demonstrate if and 
how  their  flat  rate  corrections  imposed  to  protect  the  Union  budget  remedied  the 
situation. 

Commission's response: 

In the frame of its supervisory role, as soon as the Commission detects deficiencies, 
it  takes  preventive  actions  -  through  interruptions  or  suspensions  of  payments  as 
long as the Member State has not taken the relevant remedial actions defined in an 
action plan - and corrective actions through the imposition of (flat-rate) financial 
corrections. 

Weaknesses and deficiencies in the management and control systems are remedied 
through  the  implementation  of  action  plans.  The  Commission  puts  in  place 
remedial  action  plans  aiming  at  improving  the  effectiveness  of  systems  and 
remedying the causes of the deficiencies. It follows and verifies the implementation 
of  these  action  plans  up  and  considers  it  as  implemented  once  all  request  exit 
points are fulfilled. 

Flat  rate  corrections,  imposed  by  the  Commission  to  programmes  or  parts  of 
programmes,  aim  to  protect  the  EU  budget  against  the  risk  of  irregular 
expenditure being certified due to the malfunctioning of the system. They apply not 
only  for  past  expenditure  already  certified  to  the  Commission  but  can  cover 
preventively future expenditure not yet declared to the Commission. Once the flat 
rate  correction  is  applied,  the  EU  budget  is  protected.  In  their  2014  AARs,  the 
respective DGs describe the financial corrections decided/implemented as a result 
to identified deficiencies, and the follow-up to previous year's reservations. 

53. 

(§  140  -  2013/PAR/0304)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  report  in  future 
about error rates per programme. 

23 

 
Commission's response: 

See reply to 2013/PAR/0302 

54. 

(§ 142 - 2013/PAR/0305) The Parliament calls on the Commission to provide further 
guidance  and  technical  assistance  to  the  Member  States;  requests  that  the 
Commission  and  Member  States  pay  particular attention to  simplifying  procedures, 
including  those  for  beneficiaries,  which  can  have  benefits  for  both  auditing  and 
decreasing  error  rates,  while  in  parallel  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  the 
management and control systems. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  already  providing  the  programme  authorities  the  necessary 
guidance  and  targeted  trainings  for  each  of  the  implementation  phases  of  the 
programmes. This includes sharing good practices and developing knowledge. 

DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  has  set-up  a  specialised  competence  centre  to 
improve the administrative capacity in Member States with difficulties and also to 
support  public  administrations  managing  EU  funds  to  improve  their  capacity  to 
efficiently  and  effectively  plan,  implement  and  evaluate  high  quality  investment 
programmes  under  Cohesion  Policy.  The  competence  centre  has  launched  three 
initiatives  to  improve  administrative  capacity,  public  procurement  and  State  aid 
through: additional guidance targeted to common errors; targeted action plans to 
address  the  causes  of  weak  administration;  setting-up  of  a  Common  Expert 
Exchange  System  for  better  sharing  the  existing  expertise  and  good  practices  in 
the programme authorities. 

At  DG  Employment  level,  a  number  of  events  giving  practical  guidance  on 
simplification  have  been  organised  in  Member  States  since  2012  to  optimize  the 
use of Simplified Cost Options in the current programming period and a survey on 
the  use  of  SCOs  was  launched  to  all  DG  EMPL  managing  authorities  in  June 
2015 and an updated Guidance note for the Member States on SCOs was issued in 
October 2014 and has been translated in all EU languages early 2015.  This was 
followed  by  guidance  notes  on  both  the  use  of  delegated  acts  under  Article  14(1) 
ESF  and  joint  actions  plans  (JAPs)  in  June  2015.  DG  EMPL  has  organised  a 
number of seminars aimed at offering practical guidance at assistance to member 
states which wish to pursue SCOs, especially Article 14(1) ESF. By the end July, 7 
of these will have taken place in 2015. 

The Commission also set up an independent high level expert group on monitoring 
of simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds in June 2015 and the first meeting 
is  foreseen  in  October    2015.  This  group  will  look  at  the  commitments  made  by 
Member  States  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries  as  part  of 
their programming for the 2014-2020 period and the take up of the simplification 
measures introduced for the current period such as e-cohesion and greater use of 
simplified  cost  options.    The  conclusions  and  recommendations  from  this  group 
will  assist  in  the  implementation  of  programmes  in  the  current  period  as  well  as 
providing input to the planning for the post 2020 regulatory framework. 

In  addition,  audit  capacity  initiatives  are  carried  out.  DG  Regional  and  Urban 
Policy reviewed the work of the most important audit authorities covering around 
96%  of  ERDF  and  CF  allocations  and  is  continuously  following-up  identified 
weaknesses  and  monitoring  the  situation  where  the  single  audit  status  has  been 
granted.  This  audit  work  -  that  includes  on-the-spot  re-performance  of  audits 
including at the level of beneficiaries and operations, associated with the issuance 

24 

 
of  continuous  audit  guidelines  and  methodological  tools  thoroughly  discussed  by 
the  Commission  services  with  the  audit  authorities  -  has  enabled  comprehensive 
capacity-building  for  the  audit  authorities  since  2009.  They  benefit  also  from 
extended  support  and  guidance  from  the  Commission  through  strict  supervision, 
technical meetings, and trainings. 

55. 

(§  144  -  2013/PAR/0306)  The  Parliament  points  out  that  in  50  out  of  75  cases, 
reservations  remained  in  place  for  a  year  or  longer;  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
provide information to assess if the weaknesses and the regions remained the same 
and to find out why national management authorities did not manage to correct the 
errors effectively. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is already implementing this recommendation and reports on the 
follow-up  of  the  N-1  reservations  in  the  AAR  for  the  year  N.  The  AAR  also 
provides  a  description  of  the  identified  deficiencies  in  the  OP/part  of  the  OP  for 
each  programme  under  reservation.  It  identifies  reservations  which  are  carried 
over from the previous year when problems are not solved. 

56. 

(§ 146 - 2013/PAR/0307) The Parliament calls on the Commission to provide a list 
of  these  cases  (serious  deficiencies  detected  by  the  Commission  or  the  Court  of 
Auditors after the submission of the accounts will lead to net financial corrections) in 
time for the 2014 Commission discharge procedure. 

57. 

58. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  agrees  to  provide  this  list.  However,  as  the  first  assurance 
documents on the basis of which net financial corrections may be decided will be 
received by the Commission from February 2016 onwards, and taking into account 
the time necessary to carry out the analysis of the assurance documents as well as 
the  contradictory  procedure  with  the  Member  State  that  is  clearly  framed  in  the 
regulation  (Article  145  of  Regulation  1303/2013)  the  Commission  will  be  in  a 
position to provide the requested list in 2017 for the 2016 AAR at the earliest. 

(§  151  -  2013/PAR/0308)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  carry  out 
progressive  performance  assessments  during  the  implementation  of  projects  and 
following  their  completion,  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the  effectiveness  of  projects 
and stepping up checks on the use of public funds and thus being able to detect any 
abuses and fraudulent behaviour occurring during the implementation of projects. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission does assess performance of programmes, not of projects. Member 
States  are  responsible  for 
implementation  of  projects  under  shared 
management. See also reply to 2013/PAR/0321. 

the 

(§ 152 - 2013/PAR/0309) The Parliament calls on the Commission to set up a system 
for the exchange of information between national audit authorities so that accounting 
entries for transactions between two or more Member States may be cross-checked, 
with a view to combating cross-border fraud and, in view of the new  arrangements 
applying  under  the  2014-2020  multiannual  financial  framework,  in  order  to  take  a 
cross-cutting approach to the protection of the financial interests of the Union. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  does  not  intend  to  set  up  a  new  system as  recommended  above, 
for the following reasons: 

25 

 
1) 
The provisions set out in the Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the 
support  from  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  to  the  European 
territorial  cooperation  goal,  already  provide  an  adequate  framework  that  allows 
the  exchange  of 
for  cross-border 
information  between  Member  States 
programmes: 

a. 
the programme's audit authority is assisted by a group of auditors composed 
of  a  representative  from  each  Member  State or  third  country  participating  in  the 
cooperation programme and carrying out the functions provided for in Article 127 
of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013; 

b. 
each Member State or, where it has accepted the invitation to participate in a 
cooperation programme, each third country shall be responsible for audits carried 
out on its territory; 

c. 
each  representative  from  each  Member  State  or  third  country  participating 
in  the  cooperation  programme  shall  be  responsible  for  providing  the  factual 
elements  relating  to  expenditure  on  its  territory  that  are  required  by  the  audit 
authority in order to perform its assessment;  

the  group  of  auditors  shall  be  set  up  within  three  months  of  the  decision 
d. 
approving  the  cooperation  programme  and  shall  draw  up  its  own  rules  of 
procedure and be chaired by the audit authority for the cooperation programme; 

These  rules  of  procedure  should  ensure  an  effective  cooperation  between  the 
auditors  involved,  thus  enabling  the  audit  authority  of  each  cross-border 
programme  to  have  reasonable  assurance  on  the  proper  functioning  of  the 
management and control system and the legality and regularity of the expenditure. 

The  provisions  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European 
2) 
Parliament and of the Council (hereafter CPR) oblige the Member States, namely 
the  managing  authorities  (including  the  ones  responsible  for  cross-border 
programmes),  to  put  in  place  a  minimum  set  of  effective  and  proportionate  anti-
fraud measures and to carry out a fraud risk assessment. The audit authority must 
verify  that  the  managing  authority'  fraud  risk  assessment  is  credible,  provides  a 
true and fair assessment of the risks and verify that adequate anti-fraud measures 
in place to mitigate risks. In this context, some Member States decided to use the 
ARACHNE Risk Scoring Tool, developed by the Commission and made available 
to  all  Member  States.  ARACHNE  aims  at  establishing  a  comprehensive  and 
complete  database  of  projects  implemented  under  the  Structural  Funds  and 
Cohesion  Fund  in  Europe  enriched  with  the  data  from  the  publicly  available 
sources  in  order  to  identify,  based  on  a  set  of  more  than  100  risk  indicators,  the 
most risky projects, beneficiaries, contracts and contractors. The data-mining tool 
ARACHNE  is  available  to  MA  and  might  be  one  part  of  effective  management 
verifications, including proportionate anti-fraud measures. 

3) 
According to Article 122(3) of CPR, Member States shall ensure that no later 
than  31  December  2015  all  exchanges  of  information  between  beneficiaries  and 
managing  authorities,  certifying  authorities,  audit  authorities  and  intermediate 
bodies can be carried out by means of electronic data exchange systems, i.e. the so-
called "e-cohesion". Concretely for cross-border programmes, the Commission is 
aware  that  a  group  of  Member  States  has  put  in  place  a  monitoring  system 
developed  by  INTERACT  together  with  4  Interreg  programmes;  according  to 
INTERACT, this system (called "e-MS") fulfils the e-cohesion requirements and it 
is  given  to  Interreg  programmes  for  free.  This  shows  that  Member  States  are 

26 

 
actively  working  together  in  order  to  promote  effective  systems  for  exchange  of 
information  between  national  authorities  (including  audit  authorities),  thus 
improving the management and control systems that ultimately would be useful in 
combating cross-border fraud. 

The Commission and the national authorities meet regularly each year and 
4) 
share  information  on  the  audit  work  performed.  In  particular  for  cross-border 
programmes,  the  Commission  participates  actively  in  several  meetings  organized 
by Member States, namely through INTERACT. 

In conclusion, the Commission does not see the need to set up an additional system 
for  the  exchange  of  information  between  national  audit  authorities.  The 
Commission will of course seek assurance that the arrangements described above 
(among others) are in place and are functioning properly. 

59. 

(§  154  -  2013/PAR/0310)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  identify  the 
problems that lie at the root of this situation in those regions (i.e. regions inable to 
take up the funding available; decommitment of EUR 397,8 million in 2013). 

Commission's response: 

In  order  to  address  the  underlying  problems  leading  to  decommitments,  a  task 
Force  for  Better  Implementation  was  set  up  in  November  2014  to  assess  the 
situation in countries with a back log in terms of financial execution rate (BG, RO, 
CZ,  SK,  IT,  HR,  SI,  HU),  and  to  identify  the  bottlenecks  hampering  successful 
implementation  and  to  assist  those  countries  to  draw  up  concrete  action  plans  to 
address  these  potential  risks  of  de-commitments.  In  the  case  of  Greece  a  Joint 
Working  Group  (including  experts  both  from  the  Commission  services  and  the 
Greek  authorities)  has been  set  up  which  closely  cooperates  with  the  Task  Force 
for Better Implementation. This arrangement enables the Commission services to 
ensure  a  consistent  approach  to  implementation  issues  while  also  taking  account 
of the unique challenges...  

At  the  end  of  May  2015  all  action  plans  had  been  agreed  with  the  Commission 
services with a  mid-term assessment of progress made due in June and July 2015 
for most countries covered. 

The optimal use of flexibility provided within the Closure Guidelines will play an 
important role in this context. The following measures are expected to be the most 
widely  used  in  the  countries  concerned:  the  possibilities  to  compensate  lower 
absorption  in  one  priority  by  over  declaration  of  expenditures  in  performing 
priorities (10% flexibility), flexible arrangements regarding phasing of projects or 
disbursement of funds from financial instruments to final beneficiaries identifying 
and implementing new projects to the programme. 

(§ 154 - 2013/PAR/0311) The Parliament calls on the Commission also to draw up 
and submit a detailed plan for enhancing the take-up capacity of regions with a very 
low take-up rate. 

Commission's response: 

See reply to 2013/PAR/0310 

(§ 158 - 2013/PAR/0312) The Parliament is worried about the implementation of the 
priority  projects  in  Greece  under  the  Task  Force  management  and  calls  on  the 
Commission  to  provide  an  update  on  the  priority  projects  for  the  2013  follow-up 
report. 

27 

60. 

61. 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  (TFGR  included)  has  no  responsibility  for  the  management 
(from  selection  to  implementation)  of  the  so-called  181  "Priority  Projects";  their 
management occurs solely under Greek responsibility. The choice of the "Priority 
Projects"  was  undertaken  primarily  by  the  Greek  authorities  with  the  support  of 
Commissioner for Regional Policies. Upon Greek authorities requests, and where 
possible and appropriate, the TFGR was assisting on an on-going basis the Greek 
authorities in setting-up a monitoring mechanism for the PP.  

The 181 Priority Projects have no legal basis and result from a political initiative 
of  the  Commission  (Commissioner  Hahn)  and  the  Greek  authorities  in  order  to 
boost  growth  and  jobs  and  raise  the  awareness  of  the  citizens  and  the  business 
representatives  on  the  benefits  of  the  Cohesion  Policy  to  continue  supporting 
investments with visible results in their daily life. 

The  current  situation,  as  at  17  July,  according  to  data  taken  from  the  Greek  MI 
System, is 

68 out of 181 priority projects have been completed (total co-financed budget 

– 
EUR 1.367 million)  

40 are being implemented on schedule (total co-financed budget EUR 3.457 

– 
million)  

56  projects  need  to  be  accelerated  (total  co-financed  budget  EUR  5.690 

– 
million)  

11 projects are unlikely to be concluded (total co-financed budget EUR 730 

– 
million) 

– 

6 project were cancelled (total co-financed budget EUR 275 million) 

A full list of all the projects and their current status is on the open access website 
http://www.eu4you.gr/ 

62. 

(§  159  -  2013/PAR/0313)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  inform 
Parliament  about  further  developments  (concerning  potential  irregularities  in 
connection with Union assistance for the cycle path around Lago Trasimeno in Italy) 
in the follow-up report on discharge for 2013. 

Commission's response: 

Information  of  potential  investigative  interest  was  verified  by  OLAF  and  was 
complemented by an additional fact finding mission. 

In  the  selection  stage  it  was  verified  that  no  resources  from  the  shared 
management of the EU budget within the programming periods 2000-2006, 2007-
2013  and  2014-2020  had  been  committed  and/or  paid  for  the  finalisation  of  the 
cycle lane around Trasimeno Lake.  

It  was  however  confirmed  that  EU  co-financing  had  been  allocated  for  the 
execution  of  the  first  stage  of  the  works,  coming  from  the  resources  of  the 
programming  period  1994-1999.  There  has  been  no  recovery  in  the  past  because 
the allegations about an environmental infringement were unfounded and because 
no  proof  has  been  presented  that,  at  the  time,  the  original  1996  project  was  not 
correctly  implemented.  This  programme  was  closed  in  February  2004,  i.e.  more 
than 10 years ago, therefore the deadline for keeping supporting documents, three 
years after the date of confirmation of closure, has elapsed. 

28 

 
Having regard to the remote date of the co-financed activities, the limited chances 
for obtaining recovery and possible time-barring, OLAF deemed that investigative 
action  would  not  be  proportionate  and  not  an  efficient  use  of  the  available 
investigative resources. 

63. 

(§  161  -  2013/PAR/0314)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  inform 
Parliament  about  all  cases  in  which  projects  (in  the  regional  policy  area)  with  a 
Union share of at least 30 % were afterwards privatised. 

64. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  manages  programmes  and  not  projects  under  shared 
management.  Except  for  major  projects,  it  therefore  does  not  possess  a  list  of 
projects with an Union share of minimum 30% privatised afterwards. 

As regards major projects, for the 2014-2020 programming period, the information 
reported  in  the  annual  and  final  report  will  contain  information  on  the 
privatisation only if it affects the compliance with the Commission decision and/or 
the implementation conditions (durability). 

(§  162  -  2013/PAR/0315)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  explain  how 
the shortcomings in delivering emergency aid to the Abruzzi region, detected by the 
Court of Auditors, were remedied in the revised regulation, in particular with regard 
to  the  establishment  of  up-to-date  national  disaster  management  plans,  the 
establishment of emergency procurement arrangements, the setting up of temporary 
accommodation in disaster-struck areas and the transfer of any revenue generated by 
solidarity fund projects back to the Union budget. 

Commission's response: 

While the Commission has not generally accepted the Court’s conclusions, it has 
proposed  to  include  with  the  amended  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  a  clear 
definition  of  “temporary  accommodation”  and  a  new  provision  on  the  use  of 
potential  net  revenue  generated  by  EUSF  projects.  Council  and  the  Parliament 
accepted these modifications which entered into force in June 2014. 

The establishment of national disaster management plans goes beyond the scope of 
the  EU  Solidarity  Fund;  the  Commission  has  however  adopted  extended  civil 
protection legislation in 2014. Public procurement rules in place cover emergency 
arrangements. 

Guidance on the avoidance of the most common errors in public procurement of 
projects  funded  by  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  has  been 
finalised in June 2015 which contains emergency arrangements also applicable to 
the EUSF. 

65. 

(§ 163 - 2013/PAR/0316) The Parliament calls on the Commission to report in detail 
on progress made with MCSs considered partially effective MCS in 2013 in time for 
the 2014 discharge procedure. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission provided such a requested report in time for the 2014 discharge 
procedure  through  the  2014  AARs  that  present  a  follow-up  to  partially  effective 
MCS  in  2013  and  the  reservations  on  programmes  due  to  lack  of  sufficient 
progress. 

29 

 
66. 

(§  164  -  2013/PAR/0317)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  carry  out  an 
assessment of the 'first level checks' performed during the 2007-2013 programming 
period in accordance with Article 32(5) of the Financial Regulation. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  implemented  the  recommended  action.  The  annual  activity 
report  is  the  document  where  in  first  instance  is  made  the  assessment  the 
European Parliament calls on. 

As regards the assessment of the first-level checks for 2007-2013 the Commission 
considers  it  is  already  carrying  out  such  assessment  since  2010  through  targeted 
audits  on  high  risk  programmes  in  the  frame  of  its  audit  enquiry  ‘Bridging  the 
assurance gap’. Results of these risk based are presented in the 2014 AAR of DG 
Regional and Urban Policy (see page 50 and Annex 8). 

67. 

(§  164  -  2013/PAR/0318)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  add  an 
assessment of the reliability of the information transmitted by the certifying bodies in 
the Member States to the annual activity report of DG REGIO. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission agrees to add an assessment of the reliability of the information 
transmitted  by  the  certifying  bodies  in  the  Member  States  to  its  annual  activity 
report.  This  was  done  in  the  2014  AARs,  and  information  on  reported  data  not 
taken into account is provided. 

68. 

(§  166  -  2013/PAR/0319)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  request  that 
audit authorities certify the accuracy of the data on financial corrections reported by 
certifying authorities for each OP. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission agrees. The detailed information requested will be published for 
the 2014-2020 programming period. 

69. 

(§  167  -  2013/PAR/0320)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  consistently 
disclose  in  its  annual  activity  report  the  reasons  for  not  making  reservations  where 
this  is  due  to  exceptions  to  applicable  Commission  guidance  or  approved  audit 
strategies. 

Commission's response: 

In its reply to the recommendation 6 of Chapter 5 of the annual report of the Court 
for  the  financial  year  2013,  the  Commission  agreed  to  disclose  further  details  in 
the relevant annual activity reports (AAR) for those individual cases where, based 
on its assessment of the specific situations, it has taken a reasoned decision not to 
make  reservations  or  not  to  include  the  issue  in  the  quantification  of  the 
reservation. This has been done in the 2014 AARs by the respective DGs. 

70. 

(§  169  -  2013/PAR/0321)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  ask  national 
authorities to give feedback on whether the established project objectives in the area 
of ERDF/CF were accomplished. 

Commission's response: 

In  2007-2013  programming  period,  the  Member  States  provided  feedback  on 
achievements at priority axis level in their annual implementation reports.   

30 

 
The  Commission  will  complement  this  information  with  the  results  of  the  2007-
2013  ex  post  evaluation.    This  evaluation  will  examine  the  extent  to  which  the 
resources were used, their reported achievements and impact. 

In  the  2014-2020  policy  framework,  performance  and  evaluation  have  been 
strengthened. 

Implementation  of  the  policy  will  be  characterized  by  transparency  and 
accountability for what is achieved (result orientation), not only absorption of the 
funds. 

The  introduction  of  the  performance  framework  creates  an  incentive for  projects 
and programmes  to deliver what is planned. In 2019 the Commission will review 
what has been achieved up to the end on 2018 and only successful priorities will 
gain access to the performance reserve. 

The Commission will summarise the information from the annual implementation 
reports  and  present  its  analysis  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European 
Council.  DG  REGIO  intends  to  build  its  OPEN  DATA  project  to  publish  on  its 
website  the  data  on  the  progressive  achievement  of  the  targets  for  the  common 
indicators. 

Evaluation  requirements  for  the  Member  States  have  been  strengthened  for  the 
2014-2020  period  as  part  of  the  orientation  on  results  and  performance  The 
evaluations will be focused at the level of the specific objectives in the priority axis 
and will ask how the projects co-financed are contributing to achieve the results. 
Managing  Authorities  must  establish  an  evaluation  plan  within  a  year  of  the 
adoption of the programme. In 2022, Managing Authorities will produce a report 
for each programme which summarises the findings of evaluations carried out and 
the  main  results  achieved.    This  will  feed  into  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
programmes, to be completed by the Commission by the end of 2024. 

71. 

(§  169  -  2013/PAR/0322)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  ask  national 
authorities to give feedback on whether the established project objectives in the area 
of ESF were accomplished. 

Commission's response: 

In  order  to  ensure  transparency  concerning  support  from  the  ESF,  in  the  2014-
2020  programming  period  Member  States  shall  make  accessible  electronically  a 
list of operations by Operational Programme which shall be updated at least every 
six  months.  Moreover,  the  Commission  will  publish  summary  reports  of  Member 
States' Annual Implementation reports every year starting from 2016 and strategic 
reports summarising the Member States' progress reports in 2017 and 2019 which 
will  analyse  progress  in  achieving  the  ESF  objectives  on  employment,  social 
inclusion,  education  and  institutional  capacity  building.  All  reports  will  be 
submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 

72. 

(§  170  -  2013/PAR/0323)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  clarify  the 
"inaccuracies" in the FEIs and to assess the results in detail in the DG REGIO's 2014 
annual activity report. 

Commission's response: 

Concerning  the  issues  regarding  the  reporting  of  data  to  the  relevant  managing 
authorities: 

31 

 
-  In  the  case  of  Hungary  the  "inaccuracies"  refer  to  the  fact  that  amounts 
constituting  reflows  from  financial  engineering  instruments  are  reported  as 
disbursement  to  final  recipients  and  therefore  constitute  double  counting.  The 
amounts incorrectly reported are very limited and have only marginal effect on the 
high disbursement rate achieved.  

- In the case of Italy a limited number of financial engineering instruments were 
not reported within the deadline and could therefore not be included in the annual 
summary  of  data.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  numbers  do  not  provide  a  full  picture 
this "inaccuracy" has only limited effect on the data presented.). 

Furthermore  in  the  framework  of  preparing  the  reporting  on  the  year  2014  the 
Commission  provided  guidance  to  managing  authorities  (on  20  March  2014, 
updated in May 2015) and stressed the importance of reliable reporting within the 
regulatory deadline. 

73. 

(§  171  -  2013/PAR/0324)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  include  in  its 
Management Plan and Annual Activity Report an assessment of its work in relation 
to increasing the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the cohesion policy. 

Commission's response: 

In  line  with  the  applicable  templates  in  use  across  the  Commission  services,  DG 
REGIO  illustrates  and  reports  annually  on  its  efforts  to  increase  efficiency, 
effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  policy  in  the  Management  Plan  (section 
"Procedures  and  controls  for  optimizing  economic,  efficient  and  effective 
implementation  of  programmes")  and  in  the  Annual  Activity  Report  (section 
"Specific efforts to improve economy and efficiency of spending and non-spending 
activities").   

In addition, DG REGIO identifies annually operational priorities which have the 
greatest  influence  on  the  delivery  of  policy  results  and  thus  enhance  policy 
performance. 

For  2015,  the  DG  has  identified  20  such  priorities.  In  its  next  AAR,  the  DG  will 
report  on  their  implementation.  In  addition  in  the  AAR,  the  DG  reports  on  a 
number  of  horizontal  actions  (under  the  overall  action  plan)  such  as  the 
administrative  capacity  initiative,  the  public  procurement  initiative,  the  audit 
capacity initiative and the specific task force on better implementation which,  by 
mitigating  the  main  risks  and  weakness  identified,  aim  at  increasing  efficiency, 
effectiveness and impact of the cohesion policy. 

74. 

(§ 171 - 2013/PAR/0325) The Parliament invites the Commission, in addition to the 
budget  execution  approach,  to  check  the  performance  against  objectives  and  better 
use  the  evaluations,  as  well  as  to  support  Member  States  and  their  Managing 
Authorities in maximising the quality of their evaluation reports. 

Commission's response: 

DG REGIO will put in place an external support during the second semester 2015 
to review the evaluation plans, provide some methodological support for Member 
States and quality assess the findings of evaluations. 

The  DG  will  also  check  the  performance  against  objectives  more  systematically 
(see reply to 2013/PAR//0321 with the introduction of the performance framework 
and  the  fact  that  the  performance  will  also  now  be  discussed  during  the 
Monitoring committee meetings)  

32 

 
Data  from  these  reports  as  well  as  summaries  from  evaluations  carried  out  at 
national  level  will  then  be  synthesized  each  year  for  the  report  to  the 
Council/Parliament (art. 53). 

The  performance  of  the  2014-2020  programmes  will  be  assessed  annually.  This 
will  be  largely  based  on  the  values  of  indicators  reported  by  member  States 
associated with the policy specific objectives and this will complement the evidence 
regarding policy performance gathered through the evaluation activities. In 2014, 
DG REGIO has defined and carried out a pilot exercise aimed at systematising the 
assessment  of  the  programme  performance  for  the  2007-2013  programmes.  This 
will be reconducted in 2015. 

75. 

(§ 172 - 2013/PAR/0326) The Parliament calls for a detailed analysis of the fund’s 
performance, on which Parliament’s political assessment of the ESF will hinge, to be 
submitted by the end of the year. 

Commission's response: 

For  the  2007-2013  programming  period:  According  to  Article  67  of  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1083/2006,  each  year  as  of  2008  and  until  2017,  Member 
States/Managing Authorities have to submit an annual implementation report (or 
final report in 2017). In this context, the Commission and the Managing Authority 
examine  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the  operational  programme,  the 
principal results achieved over the previous year, the financial implementation and 
other factors with a view to improving implementation.  

For the 2014-2020 programming period: The Commission has introduced a set of 
common  output  and  result  indicators  for  the  programming  period  2014-2020 
described in the ESF Regulation ( Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of 17 December 
2013).  This  includes  common  indicators  for  outputs  and  results  for  all  policy 
areas,  including  for  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI).  All  Managing 
Authorities  will  report  yearly  on  those  indicators  by  investment  priority,  allowing 
the  Commission  to  monitor  performance  and  results  achieved  by  ESF  notably  in 
to  employment,  self-employment,  gaining 
terms  of  participants'  access 
qualifications or being on training. Further, targets to be reached by 2023 were set 
for  each  specific  objective  in  the  programmes,  allowing  comparing  actual 
achievements  with  targets.  Further,  a  performance  framework  was  set  up,  where 
intermediary targets had to be set (the so-called milestones to be reported in 2019). 
Evaluation obligations for Managing Authorities have been strengthened, notably 
through  the  requirement  to  assess  impacts  for  each  priority,  at  least  once  during 
the programming period, and as regards the achievement of Europe 2020 targets.  
Managing  Authorities  have  to  report  the  findings  of  the  evaluations  carried  out 
during  the  year  in  their  annual  implementation  report  to  the  Commission.    The 
Commission itself will report on performance based on these elements through its 
yearly summary report starting from 2016, and in its strategic reports in 2017 and 
2019.    Unlike  the  annual  implementation  report,  the  Regulations  do  not  set  any 
reporting  obligation  for  the  Commission  with  regard  to  the  data  submitted  by 
Member States in 2015 for the YEI. In spite of the absence of a legal obligation, 
the Commission will also report to the European Parliament before the end of the 
year  on  these  data.  The  Commission  is  of  the  view  that  the  presentation  and 
discussion of this initial reporting in the European Parliament will be important to 
assess what further actions should be taken to ensure the YEI achieves its objective 
and on whether the YEI resources should be increased for 2016 to 2020.  

33 

 
Moreover, and according to Article 16 of the Common Provisions Regulation the 
Commission will prepare a report on the outcome of the negotiations concerning 
the  Partnership  Agreements  and  the  programmes,  including  the  key  issues  for 
each Member States. This report will be submitted to the EP, Council, EESC and 
CoR simultaneously by 31 December 2015. This report will provide information on 
the  main  results  to  be  achieved  by  the  ESI  Funds  and  will  constitute  a  basis  for 
future performance analyses. 

34 

 
Employment and social affairs 

76. 

(§  176  -  2013/PAR/0327)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  support 
Member States in implementing the Union funds and make sure that this money will 
be spent for its indicated purpose (youth employment). 

Commission's response: 

Helping Member States to tackle the high levels of youth unemployment is at the 
core  of  the  Commission's  priorities.    The  Commission  has  continuously  been 
asking Member States to make good use of the EU funds, in particular the Youth 
Employment  Initiative  and  the  ESF,  for  the  implementation  of  the  Youth 
Guarantee. Member States should use the EU funding available to support good-
quality  measures  for  young  people  and  introduce  the  necessary  reforms  in  the 
labour  market  and  education  systems.    The  Commission  has  been  strongly 
committed to help Member States to address any bottlenecks in the implementation 
of  the  YEI:  The  Commission  has  given  priority  to  the  adoption  of  all  the 
operational  programmes  with  a  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI)  component, 
supporting  Member  States  in  their  design  through  technical  guidance,  with  a 
number of actions, such as constant contact with national authorities, preparation 
of  guidance  notes,  a  helpdesk  to  set  up  apprenticeships  and  traineeships,  and 
technical level events on the YEI. Policy guidance was also provided in the context 
of  the  Youth  Guarantee  and  on  how  best  to  help  implement  it  with  YEI  support. 
The adoption of a proposal to increase the initial pre-financing for the YEI (which 
has already been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council) is also a 
good  example  of  this  strong  commitment.  This  measure  has  allowed  Member 
States to overcome delays in the implementation of projects due to lack of funding 
by providing around 1 billion EUR of funding for the implementation of projects 
under the YEI. 

77. 

(§  176  -  2013/PAR/0328)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  establish  a 
system, for the 2014-2020 programming period which allows for reports on progress 
made  in  integrating  disadvantaged  people  or  groups  of  people  (i.e.  youth,  elderly, 
long-term unemployed, Roma) into employment. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has already started working in the direction indicated by the EP. 
For  the  period  2014-2020,  the  ESF  Regulation  (N°  1304/2013  of  17  December 
2013)  has  set  up  common  immediate  result  indicators  for  disadvantaged 
participants engaged in job searching, education/training, gaining a qualification, 
in  employment,  including  self-employment,  upon  leaving  (the  ESF  action),  and 
long-term  result 
in  employment, 
indicators  for  disadvantaged  participants 
including  self-employment,  six  months  after  leaving  (the  ESF  action).  Common 
indicators  are  binding  and  will  be  reported  by  investment  priority.  Immediate 
results indicators will be reported by the Managing Authorities annually from 2016 
to 2023. Long-term result indicators will be reported twice (2019 and 2025). 

78. 

(§  178  -  2013/PAR/0329)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  support 
effective  implementation  of  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies  at  local  and 
regional  levels  and  to  ensure  that  budget  spending  targets  the  objectives  of  the 
mainstream policies. 

35 

 
Commission's response: 

The Common Provisions Regulation and the ESF Regulation set the framework to 
support  the  effective  implementation  of  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies. 
Member  States  which  need  to  offer  ESIF  support  to  Roma,  have  to  respect  the 
related  ex  ante  conditionality  (requiring  the  development  of  a  national  Roma 
inclusion policy framework) or, if this conditionality cannot be met, to submit an 
action plan which has to be fulfilled not later than 31 December 2016. 17 action 
plans have been included in ESF Operational Programmes (2 BG, 1 CZ, 12 GR, 1 
IT, 1 SK). 

Operational Programmes of Member States with Roma communities are targeting 
a mixture of explicit but non-exclusive investments addressing Roma in relation to 
employment, social inclusion and education. The managing authorities of the ESI 
Funds are setting up monitoring and evaluation committees with the participation 
of the Commission to ensure the efficient implementation of the chosen objectives 
and  investments  for  the  period  2014-2020.    In  that  regard,  the  ESF  Regulation 
including 
indicator 
contains  one  common  output 
marginalised communities such as the Roma.  

that  cover  minorities 

the  Commission 

Furthermore, 
supports  a  capacity-building  programme 
(ROMACT)  which  helps  local  authorities  to  translate  National  Roma  integration 
strategies  at  their  level.  Concretely  ROMACT  helps  municipalities  in  designing 
and  implementing  effective  Roma  integration  measures.  It  also  assists  them  in 
submitting quality applications for support from EU and national funds. It should 
eventually lead to the provision of inclusive public services at the local level. 

79. 

(§  189  -  2013/PAR/0330)  The  Parliament  points  out  that  in  30  out  of  79  cases, 
reservations  remained  in  place  for  a  year  or  longer,  not  considering  recurrent 
reservations  issued  for  the  same  programmes;  calls  on  the  Commission  to  provide 
information in order to assess if the weaknesses and the regions remained the same 
and  to  assess  why  national  management  authorities  did  not  manage  to  correct  the 
errors effectively. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission considers that the number of reservations and the fact that some 
of them are maintained for a year or longer confirms the well-functioning of the 
control procedures put in place in the Commission and MS. 

The preventive, detective and corrective measures implemented by the Commission 
on the basis of the multi-annual supervisory and control systems offer reasonable 
assurance that the EU budget is adequately protected from expenditure in breach 
of law and risks arising from deficiencies in MS' management and control systems 
giving rise, inter alia, to recurring reservations in the AAR. 

The number of reservations in the 2013 AARs is not due to a deterioration of the 
control systems or to a lack of accountability, but is the result of an enhanced and 
more  targeted  approach  of  the  Commission,  inter  alia  as  a  result  of  the  ongoing 
strict  policy  of  interruption  and  suspension  of  payments.  Reservations  are 
generally linked to action plans that are closely supervised by the Commission. 

80. 

(§ 189 - 2013/PAR/0331) The Parliament asks the Commission, in this context, why 
these  reservations  (recurrent  reservations  in  several  Member  States)  occurred 
repeatedly and which measures the Commission has taken to remedy the situation. 

36 

 
Commission's response: 

See reply to recommendation 2013/PAR/0330. 

81. 

(§  193  -  2013/PAR/0332)  The  Parliament  asks  DG  EMPL  to  include  the  table  on 
national ACRs, provided in response to question 19 in the discharge questionnaire, in 
its annual activity report. 

Commission's response: 

DG EMPL has introduced in its 2014 Annual Activity Report the table on national 
ACRs  provided  in  response  to  question  19  in  the  2013  discharge  questionnaire. 
Please refer to annex G entitled "cumulative residual risk" of the annexes of the 
2014 Annual Activity Report (page 142-146) from DG EMPL. 

82. 

(§ 194 - 2013/PAR/0333) The Parliament calls on the Commission to ensure that the 
national  authorities  responsible  for  managing  the  Structural  Funds  address  the 
problem of personnel costs being charged for at higher rates for Union projects than 
for nationally funded projects. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts this recommendation, but believes that these issues need 
to  be  addressed  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  This  point  has  already  been  raised  in 
several  audit  reports  issued  by  the  Commission  (DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs 
and Inclusion). For certain Member States, where the problem was considered to 
be  of  a  systemic  nature,  action  plans  have  been  requested  addressing  specifically 
this phenomenon. 

In the area of Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO) staff costs represent only a 
limited  part  of  the  investments.  Staff  costs  occur  mostly  in  investments  in 
Research,  Innovation  and  Development.  In  some  of  those  cases,  and  when 
considered  overpriced,  the  Commission  reacted  with  financial  corrections  and 
agreements with the Member States on amendments of the elements to the charged 
to the Funds. 

83. 

(§  196  -  2013/PAR/0334)  The  Parliament  reiterates  its  demand  to  further  develop 
gender-specific indicators and data to allow assessments of the general budget of the 
Union from a gender perspective and to monitor efforts on gender budgeting. 

Commission's response: 

The set of common output and result indicators that are obligatory for reporting as 
annexed to the ESF regulation have to be broken down by gender. 

Furthermore, in the operational programmes where the dedicated ESF investment 
priority  has  been  selected  (AT,  CZ,  DE,  ES,  FI,  GR,  HU,  IT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  UK), 
gender-specific  indicators  have  been  included.  The  implementation  of  these 
programmes will be assessed in light of these indicators. 

It will therefore still be possible to analyse who benefits from the ESF throughout 
the programming period.  

With  the  reinforced  obligations  in  relation  to  equality  between  men  and  women 
(Article  7  ESF  Regulation),  Member  States  will  have  to  report  on  how  this 
principle was taken into account in the different programming phases and which 
specific targeted actions they implemented. This will give more visibility to gender 
issues  and  the  Commission  will  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  gender 
perspective and of specific targeted actions through the programming period.  

37 

 
The set of common output indicators set out in the ERDF/CF regulation refer to 
interventions that do not have a gender-specific character and do not, thus, allow 
for further development. 

84. 

(§ 199 - 2013/PAR/0335) The Parliament calls on the Commission to ensure, when 
approving  the  OPs  for  the  new  programming  period,  that  Member  States  have 
considered all simplification possibilities. 

Commission's response: 

A  number  of  events  giving  practical  guidance  on  simplification  have  been 
organised in Member States since 2012 to optimize the use of SCOs in the current 
programming period. 

In order to gain a better idea of the current situation on the use of SCOs in the last 
period, and to understand Member States wishes for the new programming period, 
ESIF  DGs  launched  in  June  2015  a  survey  aimed  at  all  ESIF  managing 
authorities.  The  results  of  this  survey  are  still  arriving  and  will  be  processed  by 
ESIF DGs in the Autumn.  

An updated Guidance note for the Member States on SCOs was issued in October 
2014 and has been translated in all EU languages early 2015.  This was followed 
by guidance notes on both the use of delegated acts under Article 14(1) ESF and 
joint  actions  plans  (JAPs)  in  June  2015.  DG  EMPL  has  organised  a  number  of 
seminars  aimed  at  offering  practical  guidance  at  assistance  to  Member  States 
which  wish  to  pursue  SCOs,  especially  under  Article  14(1)  ESF.  By  the  end  of 
July, 7 of these will have taken place in 2015.  

DG EMPL  also  set-up an internal Task Force  for SCOs and Joint Action Plans. 
The aim of the task force is to draw together internal expertise across directorates 
in  ESIF  DGs  to  promote  the  use  of  SCOs,  notably  under  Article  14(1)  ESF  and 
JAP, and provide support to the MS in order to meet the objective of having 50% of 
ESF expenditure claimed under a Simplified Cost Option by 2017.   

An important novelty is also the ex-ante approval of simplified costs by DG EMPL 
using  a  delegated  act  under  Article  14(1)  of  the  ESF  Regulation.  This  Article 
allows the Commission to adopt standard scales of unit costs and lump sums. This 
provides legal certainty for the Member State, and thus offers a major opportunity 
for simplification. Also, the scope of audit will be reduced compared to "classical" 
simplified  cost  options.  The  Commission  adopted  the  delegated  act  covering 
France and Sweden in July 2015, which should come into force in early October 
2015.  DG  EMPL  is  also  in  active  discussions  with  a  number  of  other  Member 
States  regarding  future  amendments  to  the  delegated  act  so  that  it  can  apply  to 
them as well.  

Finally,  a  High  Level  Group  on  Simplification  was  set  up  in  July  2015  by  the 
Commission and the first meeting is foreseen in October 2015. 

85. 

(§ 200 - 2013/PAR/0336) The Parliament calls on the Commission to report on the 
progress made in administering the abovementioned OPs under reservations and on 
remedying the discovered weaknesses in its 2013 discharge follow-up report. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  refers  to  the  2014  Annual  Activity  Report  from  DG  EMPL. 
Regarding the progress made in administering reservations, the Commission refers 
to  the  follow-up  made  of  the  2013  reservations  (page  63-67  of  the  2014  EMPL 
AAR).  Regarding  the  measures  taken  to  remedy  the  weaknesses  in  the  2013 

38 

 
discharge follow-up report, the Commission refers to the Court's 2013 findings (pg 
79-81 of the EMPL 2014 AAR). 

86. 

(§  201  -  2013/PAR/0337)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  the 
Member States' authorities in charge of managing structural funds address the issue 
of  charging  personnel  costs  at  higher  rates  for  Union  projects  compared  to  those 
financed by national funds. 

Commission's response: 

See reply to Recommendation 2013/PAR/0335 

87. 

(§ 202 - 2013/PAR/0338) The Parliament calls on the Commission to put pressure on 
the Member States and urge them to implement the Roma strategy and to ensure the 
Roma targeted implementation of Union funds. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  annually  assesses  the  implementation  of  National  Roma 
(NRIS).  This  assessment  which  covers  education, 
Integration  Strategies 
employment,  health,  housing,  the  use  of  EU  funds  and  anti-discrimination  is  the 
basis  for  recommendations  to  Member  States  presented  in  a  Commission 
Communication. The last Communication came out on 17 June 2015. 

the  European  Semester 

Within 
the  Commission  assesses  synergies  and 
discrepancies  of  targeted  Roma  inclusion  measures  with  mainstream  policies  of 
education, employment and poverty reduction, and monitors the implementation of 
Country-Specific  Recommendations  (CSR)  and  proposes  new  ones  on  Roma  for 
Member States most concerned (BG, CZ, HU, RO, SK). 

Operational Programmes of Member States with Roma communities are targeting 
a mixture of explicit but non-exclusive investments addressing Roma in relation to 
employment,  social  inclusion  and  education.  Member  States  with  larger  Roma 
populations  have  chosen 
targeting  Marginalised 
Communities  such  as  Roma  with  dedicated  targets  and  actions.  The  managing 
authorities of the ESI Funds are setting up monitoring and evaluation committees 
with the participation of the Commission to ensure the efficient implementation of 
the objectives and investments for the period 2014-2020. 

the  Investment  Priority 

88. 

(§ 203 - 2013/PAR/0339) The Parliament calls on the Commission to put pressure on 
the  Member  States  and  urge  them  to  actively  and  concretely  fight  against 
unemployment, in particular youth unemployment. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  urges  and  puts  pressure  on  Member  States  to  actively  and 
concretely fight against unemployment, in particular youth unemployment through 
the  annual  cycle  of  economic  policy  coordination  (European  semester)  and  the 
spending of the EU funds. 

Firstly,  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Semester,  the  European  Commission 
sends  out  strong  signals  to  Member  States  to  address  unemployment  and  youth 
unemployment.  

The  Commission  prepares  the  relevant  economic  and  social  policy  guidance  to 
Member  States.  Country  Specific  Recommendations  (CSRs)  are  being  proposed 
annually  by  the  Commission,  which  are  subsequently  adopted  by  the  Council, 
following  a  process  of  multilateral  surveillance.  These  recommendations  invite 
Member  States  to  accelerate  the  relevant  structural  reforms.  In  this  context,  the 

39 

 
Commission  has  repeatedly  stated  that  youth  unemployment  remains  much  too 
high and that long term  unemployment  remains  a particular  challenge, affecting 
half of all unemployed. 

The  Commission 
to 
comprehensively address long term unemployment (Commission Work Programme 
2015). 

is  currently  working  on  a  specific  policy  proposal 

Regarding  youth  unemployment,  the  Commission  issued  in  2015  CSRs  for  15 
countries which concerns the transition of young people in to the labour market. 
Five specifically point to the need for action on youth unemployment and support 
to NEETs. 

Since 2013, the Commission has taken dedicated action to support Member States 
in implementing the Council Recommendation on the Youth Guarantee, in which 
Member States committed to ensure that all young people up to 25 years receive a 
good  quality  offer  of  employment,  continued  education,  apprenticeship  or 
traineeship within four months of leaving education or becoming unemployed.  

Following the June 2013 Commission "Call to Action on Youth Unemployment"  
and  the  corresponding  European  Council  conclusions,  all  Member  States 
submitted  Youth  Guarantee  Implementation  Plans  (YGIPs)  by  May  2014.  A 
network of national Youth Guarantee coordinators was also established, in order 
to  ensure  a  direct  link  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States'  lead 
authority in charge of establishing and managing the Youth Guarantee 

The  Commission  assessed  these  plans  and  provided  feedback  to  Member  States. 
This assessment fed into the 2014 European Semester process culminating in the 
Commission's  proposals  for  CSRs  and  SWDs.  The  Commission  continues  to 
monitor  the  implementation  of  the  YG  within  the  context  of  the  European 
Semester, 
the  Employment 
Committee (EMCO) and underpinned by an Indicator Framework.  

through  multilateral  surveillance  by 

including 

The  Commission  will  monitor  YG  implementation  through  the  regular  data 
collection  under  the  Indicator  Framework,  launched  in  June  2015  with  results 
expected for end 2015. This will feed into the Commission's assessment of the YG 
under future European Semesters and into a report on the implementation of the 
YG in October 2016. 

Secondly,  the  Commission  has  also  continuously  urged  and  put  pressure  on 
Member  States  to  use  all  the  available  EU  and  national  Funds  to  fight  against 
unemployment, in particular youth unemployment. 

With  regard  to  youth  unemployment  the  Commission  has  been  asking  Member 
States  to  make  good  use  of  the  EU  funds,  in  particular  the  Youth  Employment 
Initiative  (YEI)  and  the  ESF,  for  the  implementation  of  the  Youth  Guarantee. 
Member  States  should  use  the  EU  funding  available  to  support  good-quality 
measures  for  young  people  and  introduce  the  necessary  reforms  in  the  labour 
market  and  education  systems.    The  Commission  has  been  strongly  committed  to 
help  Member  States  to  address  any  bottlenecks  in  the  implementation  of  the  YEI 
and the Youth Guarantee, notably by: 

-giving  priority  to  the  adoption  of  all  the  operational  programmes  with  a  YEI 
component, the main instrument for supporting youth unemployment 

- being in constant contact with national authorities, 

-  preparing  guidance  notes  on 
arrangements for the YEI,  

the  programming  and 

implementation 

40 

 
- setting-up a helpdesk for apprenticeships and traineeships; 

- organising seminars and events, including at technical level, on the YEI and the 
Youth Guarantee.  

- preparing policy guidance in the context of the Youth Guarantee and on how best 
to implement it with YEI support 

The adoption of a proposal to increase the initial pre-financing for the YEI (which 
has already been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council) is also a 
good example of the Commission's strong commitment to put pressure on Member 
States.  This  measure  has  allowed  Member  States  to  overcome  delays  in  the 
implementation  of  projects  due  to  lack  of  funding  by  providing  around  1  billion 
EUR  and  includes  a  provision  requiring  Member  States  to  return  the  additional 
pre-financing if certain conditions related to implementation are not met. 

41 

 
External relations 

89. 

(§ 212 - 2013/PAR/0340) The Parliament asks the Commission to submit a report on 
the  added  value  of  budget  support  and,  in  particular,  on  the  way  it  has  helped 
developing countries in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission  reports  regularly  and  fully  on  Budget  Support,  commitments, 
payments  and  country  results.  Evaluations  trace  the  contribution  to  objectives, 
including  the  MDGs.  A  synthesis  of  evaluation  findings  concerning  Budget 
Support and the way it has contributed to developing countries in order to achieve 
their development goals has been presented and published end of 2014. 

90. 

(§  212  -  2013/PAR/0341)  The  Parliament  requests  in  this  regard  a  survey  of 
measures  taken  to  avoid  part  of  the  funding  being  wasted  as  a  result  of  corruption 
and fraud and of the effectiveness of financial management systems in this regard. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission  reports  regularly  and  fully  on  Budget  Support,  commitments, 
payments and country results. The Annual Activity Report (AAR) and preparatory 
studies trace the full control chain and its efficiency. Please refer to chapter 2.1.12 
-  control  efficiency  and  cost  effectiveness,  including  and  as  a  separate  category 
Budget  Support.  Dedicated  regular  reports  on  Budget  Support,  commitments, 
payments  and  country  results  also  include  reporting  on  the  risk  management 
framework. 

91. 

(§  213  -  2013/PAR/0342)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  examine  the 
option  of  presenting,  in  its  own  accounts  an  analysis  of  these  projects  as  a  whole, 
instead of limiting itself to the consideration of whether the pooled amount includes 
sufficient eligible expenditure to cover the Union contribution. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

In multi-donor actions, such as trust  funds, the total cost of  the action is  divided 
between the co-financing partners and all the funds are pooled, with the result that 
the source of funding for a specific activity within the action cannot be identified-
funds of the donors are hence not earmarked. As it is virtually impossible to apply 
each  donor's  rules  and  procedures,  the  donors  agree  on  the  common  rules  to  be 
applied.  In  addition,  the  contributions  of  each  donor  are  subject  to  a  number  of 
specific requirements regarding ineligibility of costs which do not necessarily apply 
to the other donors pooling funds together in a multi-donor action.  

Faced with that situation, the 'notional approach' has been developed to allow the 
European  Union  to  participate  in  such  multi-donor  actions.  That  approach 
guarantees  that  the  legal  requirements  applicable  to  EU  funding  in  external 
actions are met (by ensuring that the amount contributed by the Union is eligible 
under  EU  rules)  while  spending  EU  funds  in  the  most  efficient  way  (through 
donor  coordination),  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  sound  financial 
management. 

42 

 
Regarding the EU contribution itself, the conditions applied are basically the same 
as those in actions fully financed by EU funds. As far as the legal commitment is 
concerned, some particularities are added in case of multi-donor actions, such as 
the possibility of having a larger contracting period (consistent with the duration 
of  the  action  and  the  necessity  to  disburse  the  funds  of  multiple  donors  during 
longer  periods)  or  the  possibility  of  using  the  rules  of  the  organisation  for  the 
publication  of  contracts.  Likewise,  as  far  as  the  payment  is  concerned,  the 
expenditure  within  the  EU  contribution  is  subject  to  the  same  eligibility-
requirements  of  being  necessary,  actually  incurred,  justified,  identifiable  and 
verifiable. The same rules on what constitutes inacceptable expenditure, also apply 
to the EU contribution in multi-donor actions. 

In its DAS 2013 annual report, the Court of Auditors does not criticise the notional 
approach itself, but hints at the theoretical risk that the overall spending does not 
meet  the  combined  conditionality  requirements  of  the  Commission  and  the  other 
donors. 

As  indicated  in  the  Commission's  answers  to  the  Court's  observation,  the 
Commission  limits  that  risk  by  assessing  the  accounting,  audit,  internal  control, 
procurement,  grants  and  financial  instruments  procedures  of  the  partner 
international  organisations  in  advance  of  any  joint  working,  the  presence  of  its 
staff  in  the  field  (and  participation  in  steering  groups)  and  the  rigorous  overall 
financial reporting required of the international organisation. In addition, during 
the implementation of external action programmes, systems are regularly reviewed 
through the performance of verification missions undertaken by external auditors. 
The audits carried out by the Commission have not to date evidenced any risks of 
the nature referred to by the Court. 

The  Parliament's  recommendation  goes  beyond  the  Court's  observation  and 
requests the Commission to examine the option of presenting, in its own accounts, 
an analysis of the multi-donor action as a whole. 

The  Commission  would  like  to  underline  that  the  entity  managing  a  multi-donor 
action is required to submit narrative, as well as financial reports which cover the 
whole action, regardless of whether that action is entirely or partly financed by EU 
funds.  The  reports  to  be  submitted  include  progress  reports  at  the  end  of  each 
reporting period and a final report at  the  end of  the  agreement's implementation 
period. Where an action lasts longer than the agreement's implementation period, 
the final report may be given, once available. 

So,  the  narrative  and  financial  reports  received  cover  the  entire  action,  and  not 
only  the  percentage  of  the  EU  contribution.  Through  those  reports,  the 
Commission verifies whether the action in its whole is implemented in line with the 
agreement: this is to say whether the entity has carried out the activities envisaged 
in the action, in line with its objectives, strategies and priority areas. 

However,  when  it  comes  to  verifying  the  eligibility  of  the  expenditure  resulting 
from  the  action,  the  Commission  must  limit  such  an  analysis  to  the  EU 
contribution: to make an expenditure-eligibility analysis of the whole multi-donor 
action, the Commission ought to control whether the eligibility requirements which 
the  other  donors  impose  upon  their  own  contributions  in  the  multi-donor  action, 
would  be  respected.  Such  a  control  would  go  beyond  the  competences  of  the 
Commission; it is not the Commission's task to become the controller of the own 
contributions of other donors such as World Bank, UN agency or Third Country, 
nor  will  such  States  or  International  Organisations  ever  allow  a  control-
intervention  outside  the  EU  contribution,  from  the  side  of  the  Commission.  The 

43 

 
Commission does on the other hand, request from the fund-managing entity, at the 
end  of  the  implementation  period  of  the  agreement,  a  declaration  that  ineligible 
costs for the EU contribution are covered by other donors' contributions.  

The  Commission's  limitation  of  the  expenditure-eligibility  analysis  to  its  own 
contribution  under  the  notional  approach,  is  in  line  with  article  42(2)  of  the 
Delegated  Regulation  1268/2012.  To 
the  Parliament's 
recommendation  aims  to  request  the  Commission  to  consider  an  expenditure-
eligibility  analysis  of  the  whole  multi-donor  action,  the  Commission  is  not  in  a 
position  to  accept  the  request.  The  Commission  does,  on  the  other  hand,  already 
analyse the implementation of the activities of the whole multi-donor action. 

the  extent 

that 

92. 

(§  217  -  2013/PAR/0343)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  clarify  the 
standing  instructions  given  by  the  Secretariat  General  of  the  Commission  so  as  to 
make it possible that an adverse opinion be given when the financial impact exceeds 
the materiality threshold for the whole budget under a DG's responsibility. 

Commission's response: 

Under the present AAR instructions, it is possible to give an adverse opinion. The 
AOD  may  conclude  that  he/she  has  no  reasonable  assurance  that  the  control 
procedures put in place give the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and 
regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, the current accountability 
set up does not prevent, and cannot overrule, an AOD from doing so. It is for the 
AOD to  assess  the  effectiveness of the  risk management, control  and governance 
processes, in view of the evidence available, and reach a conclusion. 

93. 

(§  218  -  2013/PAR/0344)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  consider 
introducing  a  sanction  mechanism  in  case  of  intentional  irregular  declaration  of 
assurance made by an authorising officer in the annual activity report referred to in 
Article 66(9) of the Financial Regulation. 

94. 

Commission's response: 

Such a mechanism  is currently in place. Both the  Financial  Regulation (Articles 
72  and  73)  and  the  Commission  Staff  Regulations  (article  86)  currently  already 
foresee  that  the  AOD  is  liable  to  disciplinary  procedures  and  his  pecuniary 
responsibility incurred in the event of illegal activity, fraud or corruption. 

(§  219  -  2013/PAR/0345)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  redistribute 
personnel  resources  from  other  Directorates-General  to  DG  TRADE  to  ensure  that 
DG TRADE is able to satisfy the justified demand of Union citizens and Parliament 
for increased transparency and increased access to information in the context of the 
Union's  ongoing  trade  negotiations  and  the  upcoming  ratification  process,  in 
particular with regard to TTIP, CETA and TISA, in an effective, efficient and timely 
manner  without  being  forced  to  neglect  other  important  tasks  assigned  to  the 
Commission. 

Commission's response: 

As  provided  for  by  the  Financial  Regulation,  the  allocation  of  resources  falls 
within  the  administrative  autonomy  of  each  Institution.  The  Commission  follows 
this principle when allocating the resources to its departments. 

95. 

(§ 223 - 2013/PAR/0346) The Parliament asks that sufficient controls on the various 
activities supporting the internationalisation of the Union's small and medium-sized 
enterprises, as well as their access to third markets, be ensured. 

44 

 
Commission's response: 

strategy  on  SME 
DG  GROW  proposes 
internationalization  which  will  be  complementary  to  the  general  trade  conditions 
for businesses (mainly responsibility of DG TRADE).    

to  create  a  comprehensive 

At  the  level  of  the  Commission,  DG  GROW  actively  participates  in  the  Inter 
Service  Consultations  initiated  by  the  different  Commission  services  and  which 
relate to activities supporting the internationalisation of SMEs.  At the operational 
level, cooperation is already put in place between the  Enterprise Europe Network 
and EU initiatives supporting SMEs in third countries. 

96. 

(§ 223 - 2013/PAR/0347) The Parliament reiterates the need to evaluate the level of 
effectiveness  and  to  look  for  ways  in  which  coordination  between  Union  business 
centres,  national  business  centres  and  chambers  of  commerce  in  third  countries,  in 
particular in Asia, could be improved. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  Commission  proposes 
to  create  a  comprehensive  strategy  on  SME 
internationalization which includes, amongst others, more effective outreach of the 
Asia-based pan-European chambers of commerce and EU business centres to EU 
SMEs in Europe and better coordination of their outreach activities in the EU. In 
particular  for  Asia,  a  Platform  is  being  created  with  the  aim  of  providing  an 
efficient  and  highly  visible  single  entry-point  for  EU-based  SME  intermediary 
organisations  as  well  as  individual  SMEs  that  connects  to  those  chambres  and 
centres  in  individual  emerging  Asian  economies  and  informs,  inter  alia,  about 
their  first  entry  support,  services.  The  Platform  also  aims  at  deepening  the 
cooperation  and  coordination  mainly  between  the  various  EU-funded  European 
business  support  projects  in  Asia.  Non-EU  funded  European  business  support 
organisations  may  also  join  the  Platform.  Foremost,  among  those  first  entry 
support  services  is  the  provision  of  information  about  all  relevant  aspects  of 
"doing business" in a specific Asian emerging economy, towards the correct, and 
appropriate  level  of,  understanding  of  those  dynamic  markets.  The  project  will 
support  the  creation  of  a  virtual  structure  (an  interactive  web  platform)  allowing 
the  easy  access  to  those  services  as  well  as  cooperation  and  coordination  among 
those projects particularly with respect to their outreach activities in the EU. The 
Asia Platform is planned to be operational by the end of 2015 and is financed by 
DG DEVCO on the basis of the amended ICI Regulation. 

97. 

(§ 224 - 2013/PAR/0348) The Parliament urges the Commission to implement these 
recommendations  (included  in  the  Court  of  Auditors'  Special  Report  No  13/2014 
entitled  "EU  support  for  rehabilitation  following  the  earthquake  in  Haiti")  in  all  its 
ongoing and future operations in the aftermath of a disaster or a fragile situation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

CoA's report recommendation 1: The Commission should, at the outset and where 
appropriate  during  implementation  of  programmes,  assess  the  likelihood  and 
potential impact of the main risks to the achievement of programme objectives and 
take measures to prevent or mitigate these risks. 

Follow up done: 

45 

 
a) For budget support, this recommendation is integrated in the 2012 new budget 
support guidelines and is now in place for all budget support operations.  

b) For other programmes, detailed procedures are in place to ensure assessment of 
likelihood, potential impact and mitigation measures in the design of programmes. 
During  the  implementation,  risk  management  is  considered  in  the  framework  of 
the already existing procedures.  

CoA's  report  recommendation  2:  ECHO  and  DEVCO  should  adopt  a  common 
(country-specific) LRRD strategy.  

Follow up done:  

a) The Commission is already implementing a LRRD strategy and will continue to 
do so in the framework of the resilience agenda. We are currently stepping up the 
integration of resilience-building into our programmes. 

b) DEVCO and ECHO are developing a joint framework of integrating resilience 
in  all  activities  (Joint  Humanitarian  Development  Framework)  so  as  to  ensure  a 
smooth  eventual  exiting  of  humanitarian  aid  and  improve  coherence  between 
humanitarian  and  development  programmes.The  framework  will  identify  a 
phasing-out process of humanitarian activities in view of the gradual decrease in 
humanitarian aid. 

c) The Joint Humanitarian Development Framework is expected to be ready by the 
second semester 2015. 

d) These measures are taken in addition to a donor-led Transition Appeal for Haiti 
2015-2016 (UN chef de file), which DEVCO is following closely. 

CoA's report recommendation 3: When providing budget support, the Commission 
should  provide  adequate  capacity  building  on  PFM  functions,  support  the  timely 
preparation  of  appropriate  PFM  reform  programmes  and  where  appropriate,  set 
out  short-term  measures  for  safeguarding  EU  funds  against  waste,  leakage  and 
inefficiency. 

Follow up done: These recommendations have now all been taken on board in the 
new 2012 Commission guidelines on budget support.  

a) In Haiti, the new State Building Contract (SBC) (112 MEUR), signed in 2014, 
includes  an  11  MEUR  package  for  capacity  building.  The  capacity  building 
measures  proposed  by  the  Court  (civil  servant  payroll  audit,  domestic  resource 
mobilisation and strengthening of institutional accounting/auditing) have all been 
included  in  this  new  programme,  either  as  an  indicator  for  disbursement  or 
through  technical  assistance.  In  addition,  other  measures  towards  more  efficient 
utilisation and prioritisation of national budgetary resources will be supported, as 
was recommended in the independent evaluation financed by DEVCO. Technical 
Assistance,  already  deployed,  is  thus  foreseen  to  support,  among  others,  the 
revenue  departments  (customs,  tax),  accounting  functions  and  support  to  the 
Supreme  Audit  Institution  (Cour  supérieure  des  comptes  et  du  contentieux 
administrative) in Haiti. 

b)  The  evaluation  also  puts  forward  the  need  for  a  stronger  political  and  policy 
dialogue, a main input of Budget support activities. This is also now addressed in 
the  new  budget  support  programme,  in  line  with  the  Commission's  2013  budget 
support  guidelines.  The  EU  has  significantly  stepped  up  its  policy  and  political 
dialogue with the Government on State Reform, Public Finance management and 
education.  2nd  and  last  political  dialogue  held  in  December  2014.  Last  round  of 

46 

 
policy dialogues on State Reform, Public Finance management and education took 
place in April 2015. In addition, dialogue with civil society in support of the SBC is 
about to be launched. 

CoA's  report  recommendation  4:  In  cases  involving  disasters  affecting  the 
functioning  of  an  EU  delegation,  the  Commission  and  EEAS  should  develop 
business  continuity  procedures,  including  provisions  for  emergency  personnel 
redeployment. 

Follow  up  done:  Business  continuity  procedures  and  provisions  for  staff 
redeployment,  under  responsibility  of  the  EEAS,  have  been  established  for  all 
delegations. 

98. 

(§ 224 - 2013/PAR/0349) The Parliament invites the Commission to inform the co-
that  hindered  effective 
legislators  of  any  budgetary  or 
implementation of Union support for rehabilitation in Haiti following the earthquake. 

legal  constraints 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  takes  note  of  this  recommendation  and  will  inform  the 
Parliament accordingly as necessary. 

99. 

(§ 225 - 2013/PAR/0350) The Parliament urges the Union to refrain from developing 
a top-down approach in developing energy infrastructure to ensure universal access 
to energy for all by 2030, bearing in mind that large scale infrastructures may not suit 
the economic and social structure of the country and fail to provide energy access to 
the  poor,  for  whom  smaller,  decentralised  and  off-grid  energy  sources  are  usually 
more appropriate and effective. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  agrees  that  there  is  a  need  to  tackle  more  directly  all  levels  of 
society  and  not  only  the  large  scale  infrastructure.  However,  as  much  as 
decentralised  and  small  off-grid  energy  sources  are  needed,  there  is  also  the 
necessity to support large infrastructures in order to address all the possible needs 
of beneficiary countries. To pursue a more targeted approach, the Commission has 
already  proposed  a  measure  to  that  effect,  and  envisages  actions  supporting  the 
bottom-up  initiatives  in  the  future,  mobilizing  funds  to  support  small-to-medium 
sustainable  energy  projects  to  accelerate  electrification  in  developing  countries. 
Last  year  we  have  first  presented,  and  are  currently  putting  in  place,  the 
Electrification  Financing  Initiative  (ElectriFI),  an  innovative  financing  scheme 
combining  EU  grant  funds  with  private  investments  to  make  small  and  medium-
sized  energy  projects  viable  ('blending'),  which  is  a  bottom-up,  private  sector-led 
approach. The focus of ElectriFI is on rural electrification, reaching out to poorest 
populations  which  can  be  best  served  by  renewable-sources  mini  grids.  It  is 
intended to be operational by the end of the year, with an initial funding of EUR 
75 million already committed by the Commission. Also last year, the Commission 
awarded  and  signed  30  grant  contracts  for  rural  electrification  action  targeting 
rural populations for small scale activities under the 10th EDF – Energy Facility 
II, for overall value of approximately EUR 150 million, then expecting to improve 
the  living  conditions  of  more  than  3  millions  people.  The  Commission  will 
continue taking this bottom-up approach for future projects. 

100. 

(§  228  -  2013/PAR/0351)  The  Parliament  recalls  that  in  its  Special  Report  No 
18/2012  entitled  "European  Union  assistance  to  Kosovo  related  to  the  rule  of  law" 
the  Court  of  Auditors  denounced  this  inefficiency  and  concluded  that  the 
procurement rules laid down in the Financial Regulation "are not designed for CSDP 

47 

 
missions  where  fast  and  flexible  responses  are  sometimes  necessary";  urges  the 
Commission to consider a revision of the relevant rules. 

Commission's response: 

The amendment tabled by the  EP  in this respect in the  context of  the  revision of 
the  Financial  Regulation  proposed  by  the  Commission  for  alignment  on  the 
Directives on public procurement has not been retained in the political agreement 
reached by the legislative authority in June 2015. 

Instead, the approach on the application of financial rules to the CSDP Missions 
will  be  consolidated  by:  (1)  establishing  a  specific  template  for  their  financial 
rules;  (2)  continuing  to  streamline  procedures  relating  to  the  establishment  and 
management of CSDP Missions (by applying all the flexibilities of the current FR, 
making  full  use  of  the  Warehouse  for  the  start-up  of  the  Mission,  finalising  the 
establishment of  a Mission  Support  Platform  for administrative support  to CSDP 
Missions, notably in the area of procurement)." 

101. 

(§ 233, 1st indent - 2013/PAR/0352) The Parliament asks the Commission to present 
to  Parliament  the  measures  taken  in  order  to  improve  the  performance  of  Union 
delegations  as  regards  financial  planning  and  resource  allocation,  financial 
administration and auditing in particular as regards the worst performing delegations. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

Each  EAMR  is  analysed  by  the  relevant  service  and  a  reply  is  given  to  the 
delegation  on  possible  improvement.  For  the  less  well  performing  delegations,  a 
specific  action  plan  or  corrective  actions/measures  are  put  in  place  and  are 
regularly  monitored.  The  Commission  is  prepared  to  share  these  action  plans  or 
measures/actions taken with the Parliament. 

102. 

(§ 233, 2nd indent - 2013/PAR/0353) The Parliament asks the Commission to better 
document  every  year  the  conclusions  it  has  drawn  from  the  EAMR  and  from  the 
KPIs and provide these conclusions together with the EAMRs to Parliament. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

A  synthesis  of  the  different  EAMRs  is  done  and  main  conclusions  on  the  KPI's 
analyses are presented to DG DEVCO Management. This document is provided to 
the European Parliament within the Annual Activity Reports. 

103. 

(§  233,  3rd  indent  -  2013/PAR/0354)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
include a balance sheet with the accounting data of the delegation into the EAMR. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The reason for this is that EAMRs cover operational credits; there is no separate 
balance sheet by delegation. The balance sheet with accounting is provided to the 
European Parliament within the Annual Activity Reports. 

104. 

(§  233,  4th  indent  -  2013/PAR/0355)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
improve  the  quality  and  the  exhaustiveness  of  the  data  provided  in  the  EAMR  and 
the relevance of the reports as well, in particular as regards the delegations overseen 
by DG ENLARGE. 

48 

 
Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. Following DG NEAR creation, the 
DG  has  undergone  a  review  of  its  financial  reporting.  Amongst  other  things, the 
DG  has  decided  to  extend  the  use  of  more  detailed  KPI's  to  former  ELARG 
Delegations, along with a tailored system of EAMR reporting. 

105. 

(§ 233, 5th indent - 2013/PAR/0356) The Parliament asks the Commission to make 
external assistance contingent on efforts being made to combat corruption. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  2003  communication  on  an  EU  comprehensive  policy  against  corruption  in 
third countries calls for the detection and punishment of all acts of corruption and 
the  confiscation  of  illicit  proceeds.  Accordingly,  the  Commission  has  established 
anti-corruption clauses which govern all public procurement procedures as well as 
the public procurement contracts implementing its development policies. Via these 
clauses the Commission reserves the right to suspend or cancel project financing if 
corrupt practices of any kind are discovered at any stage of the award process or 
during the execution of a contract and if the Contracting Authority fails to take all 
appropriate  measures  to  remedy  the  situation,  or  if  it  is  necessary  in  order  to 
investigate the eventuality of fraud. 

The ACP-EU partnership agreement signed in Cotonou in 2000 agrees that serious 
cases of corruption, including acts of bribery, could trigger a consultation process 
and possibly lead to a suspension of aid. 

In  addition  to  standard  clauses  in  financing  agreements  and  contracts,  which 
provide for sanctions in the case of fraud or  corruption, DEVCO's audit strategy 
operates at two levels. The first one consists of mandatory audits and expenditure 
verifications which are provided for in the Financial Regulation. The second level 
constitutes  an  additional  layer  of  controls  and  concerns  risk-based  audits  which 
are a response to the specific risks perceived by the Authorising Officer. This audit 
strategy  provides  an  appropriate  response  to  all  kind  of  residual  risks,  including 
the  risk  of  corruption  and  the  potential  financial  impact  on  the  Community's 
financial interests. 

The fight against corruption and fraud is also a key concern in the Commission's 
Budget  Support.  The  Commission  assesses  the  partner  government's  efforts  to 
improve  public  financial  management  and  fight  corruption.  A  risk  management 
framework is used to monitor risks and mitigating measures in a structured way, 
including on corruption and fraud. In the event of serious problems - or if there is 
no satisfactory progress - EU Budget Support is not disbursed. 

106. 

(§  234  -  2013/PAR/0357)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  and  OLAF's 
supervisory committee to investigate why and how the OLAF report was leaked and 
by  whom,  while  the  International  Management  Group  (IMG)  is  still  not  informed 
about the content of the report. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is already working on the requested action. Within the limits of 
confidentiality, the Commission will inform the Parliament about the results of its 
investigations  on  the  circumstances  of  the  alleged  unauthorised  leak.  It  should 
also  be  noted  that  the  investigation  into  the  alleged  leak,  which  is  a  disciplinary 
matter, does not fall within the competence of OLAF’s Supervisory Committee. 
49 

 
107. 

(§  235  -  2013/PAR/0358)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  take  a  clear 
decision  in  this  regard  and  asks  the  Commission  to  inform  Parliament  about  the 
follow-up given to the OLAF enquiry opened in 2011. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

OLAF  completed  its  investigation  and  the  Final  Report  and  Recommendations 
were sent to the Commission on 16 December 2014. 

The  Chair  of  CONT  has  been  informed  by  Vice-President  Georgieva,  on  a 
confidential basis, about the thrust of the follow-up given by the Commission to the 
OLAF investigation on IMG. In addition, Vice-President Georgieva also informed 
the  Chair  and  the  coordinators  of  the  CONT  Committee  during  an  in  camera 
meeting on 17 June 2015.  

The  Commission  has  studied  the  OLAF  report  in  detail  and  has  looked  at  the 
performance  of  the  contracts  awarded  to  IMG,  which  have  produced  satisfactory 
results  as  several  audits  have  confirmed.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission 
considers  that  there  was  no  negative  impact  on  the  EU  budget,  that  the  projects 
were  delivered  in  a  satisfactory  manner  and  that  there  is  therefore  no  reason  to 
recover  the  amounts  awarded  to  IMG  for  delivering  the  projects  or  to  impose 
sanctions on it. 

The Commission however will continue to closely monitor ongoing contracts and 
will not enter into new contracts with this organisation under the special procedure 
applicable to international organisations unless and until IMG further clarifies its 
legal status. 

IMG  remains  eligible  for  standard  procurement  and  grant  procedures  under  the 
direct management of EU funds. 

108. 

(§  235  -  2013/PAR/0359)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  provide 
Parliament with a list enumerating all the organisations, companies, other bodies or 
persons,  detailing  their  legal  status,  which  have  received  contracts  from  the 
Commission without a call for proposals. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action.  

A list of all the organisations, companies, other bodies or persons having received 
contracts from the Commission without a call for proposals, will be established by 
DG  DEVCO  in  collaboration  with  the  other  line  DGs,  and  provided  to  the 
Parliament by the second semester of 2016. 

109. 

(§  239  -  2013/PAR/0360)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  and  the  Union 
delegation to Ukraine to be particularly vigilant when disbursing funds and to assure 
themselves that the funds are invested in the projects they were destined for. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  monitors  the  implementation  of  the  reform  agenda  very  closely 
and is particularly vigilant to ensure that the EU funds are used for the intended 
purpose and produce tangible results. 

To  that  purpose,  for  each  Financing  Agreement  an  appropriate  follow-up 
mechanism 
the 
Commission  to  assess  whether  the  country  has  fulfilled  its  obligations  stemming 

is  set  up  which  provides  objective 

information  allowing 

50 

 
from the signed Financing Agreements. Before a (new) tranche of Budget Support 
is  disbursed,  a  thorough  analysis  is  performed  against  the  agreed  set  of 
conditionalities,  preceded  by  an  intense  political  dialogue  with  the  beneficiary 
country. Given the complexity of the reforms covered and the amounts allocated, a 
specific  quarterly  follow-up  reporting  scheme  has  been  put  in  place  for  the 
implementation of the "State Building Contract" signed in 2014. 

110. 

(§ 240 - 2013/PAR/0361) The Parliament asks the Commission to inform Parliament 
about  the  administrative  costs  of  external  aid  delivery  if  they  exceed  10  %  of  the 
forecasted budget. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  administrative  costs  are  fixed  by  the  Budgetary 
authority on an annual basis. This budget cannot be exceeded. If additional funds 
are  requested (amending budget  or transfer from other budget  lines) it needs  the 
approval from the Budgetary authority. 

111. 

(§  241  -  2013/PAR/0362)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  clarify  the 
measures taken in response to the findings of that report (report on the humanitarian 
aid granted to the Sahrawi refugee camp of Tindouf in Algeria (OF 2003/526)). 

Commission's response: 

In  2003  in  response  to  allegations of  some  cases  of  diversion  of  aid  intended  for 
Sahrawi  refugees,  the  Commission's  humanitarian  aid  department  (ECHO) 
immediately  suspended  some  of  the  projects  and  engaged  in  discussions  with  the 
EU  funded  humanitarian  organisations  and  the  Saharawi  authorities  to  address 
the  report  findings.  In  parallel,  on  the  request  of  ECHO,  OLAF  opened  an 
investigation. 

From  2003  onwards,  funding  levels  were  significantly  decreased  until  all  the 
necessary  corrective  measures  were  put  in  place.  At  the  same  time,  ECHO 
strengthened its oversight processes by its experts, including regular monitoring of 
the camps, in order to minimise the risk of aid diversion. 

The conclusions of the OLAF investigation did not lead to any request for recovery 
of funds or the necessity to initiate any judicial or administrative proceedings. The 
investigation  did,  however,  highlight  weaknesses  along  the  logistics  chain  of 
humanitarian  partners  co-funded  by  ECHO  and  other  donors.  ECHO  and  its 
partner  organisations  have  since  then  put  in  place  a  number  of  measures  which 
are still in place: 

-  At  all  stages  of  the  procurement,  transport,  storage  and  distribution, 
controls are carried out to prevent diversion. Food is transferred from the port of 
Oran to Tindouf in sealed containers. 

- ECHO-funded partner organisations that provide food aid (WFP, OXFAM 
SOLIDARITE) are present when trucks leave the central warehouses and during 
and after distributions in the camps. 

-  WFP  is  present  at  20%  of  the  124  distribution  points  (in  line  with  WFP 
international  guidelines)  and  does  post-distribution  monitoring  of  at  least  80-100 
families /month. These families are chosen randomly by WFP. 5% of beneficiaries 
are interviewed yearly. 

51 

 
 
 
 
-  ECHO  carries  out  regular 

independent  monitoring  missions  (1-2 

weeks/month) to the camps, distribution sites and surrounding markets. 

-  Audit  missions  to  partner  organisations,  including  field  visit  to  the 
Saharawi  camps  have  taken  place  in  recent  years.  36  audits  done  by  ECHO  on 
actions implemented in Tindouf since 2003, including 8 audits in the field. 

-  ECHO  provides  humanitarian  aid  through  a  reduced  number  of  key 
partner organisations (among others, WFP, UNHCR, Oxfam, Spanish Red Cross) 
to ensure full control of the assistance delivered in camps. 

There  has  been  no  evidence  of  aid  diversion  since  these  measures  were  put  in 
place. 

The  OLAF  report  concluded  that  the  number  of  beneficiaries  in  need  of 
humanitarian  support  was  estimated  at  90  000.  This  estimation  has  immediately 
become the proxy for future operations funded by the Commission, and used by the 
UN and donors. 

Until  a  political  solution  is  found,  the  Sahrawi  refugees  remain  dependent  on 
humanitarian  aid,  and  in  2015  the  Commission  has  allocated  €10  million  to 
respond to humanitarian needs. 

Commission  replies  to  EP  questions  E-6540/07  of  15  January  2008,  P-
005213/2011  of  24  May  2011  and  E-001638-13  of  15  February  2013,  provided 
information on the OLAF report and on the measures put in place. 

112. 

(§  241  -  2013/PAR/0363)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  the 
Algerian  or  Sahrawi  individuals  incriminated  by  the  OLAF  report  no  longer  have 
access to aid funded by Union taxpayers. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  provides  a  given  financial  amount  of  humanitarian  aid  to  its 
partners  (WFP,  UNHCR,  international  NGOs)  who  deliver  the  aid  in  the  camps, 
taking into account other donors contributions and its own assessment of the field 
situation.  The  funds  are  not  and  have  never  been  administered  directly  by  the 
Sahrawi leaders and Algerian intermediaries. Concerning the Algerian or Sahrawi 
individuals referred to by the OLAF report ECHO has enquired stakeholders and 
to  the  best  of  ECHO's  knowledge  key  people  referred  to  in  the  report  are  not 
directly involved in ECHO-funded operations. 

113. 

(§ 241 - 2013/PAR/0364) The Parliament calls on the Commission to re-evaluate and 
adapt  Union  aid  to  the  actual  needs  of  the  population  concerned  (Sahrawi  refugee 
camp of Tindouf in Algeria) and to ensure that the interests and needs of the refugees 
will not be harmed because they are the most vulnerable to any possible irregularity. 

Commission's response: 

ECHO  evaluates  the  needs  of  the  Sahrawi  refugees  continuously  during  field 
missions to the Tindouf camp (one to two weeks every month), which feeds into the 
elaboration of ECHO's annual aid strategy and development of the Humanitarian 
Implementation  Plan  (HIP).  ECHO  also  participates  in  the  annual  needs 
assessment  exercise  undertaken  by  UNHCR  in  the  camps  whereby,  sector  by 
sector,  all  actors  try  to  come  up  with  a  joint  analysis  of  priority  needs  for  the 
following year, based on a participatory approach to address identified inequalities 
and protection gaps. Specific needs of the most vulnerable and at risk refugees are 

52 

 
 
 
 
addressed  through  targeted  actions  for  the  disabled,  the  elderly,  women  and 
children, etc. 

53 

 
Research and other internal policies 

114. 

(§ 249 - 2013/PAR/0365) The Parliament calls on the Commission not to undermine 
the efforts made to encourage these participants (first-time applicants) to participate 
in the programmes, by systematically increasing the level of control or administrative 
burden on them. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commissioner  for  Research,  Science  and  Innovation,  Carlos  Moedas, 
underlined his support for this recommendation during the hearing of 8 January 
2015 in the CONT Committee of the European Parliament. 

In his Annual Activity Report for the year 2014, the Director-General of DG RTD 
has  also  stated  that  "Horizon  2020  includes  a  commitment  to  involving  new 
participants in the Programme”. 

The Commission therefore accepts this recommendation. The Commission wishes 
to involve all types of participants in Horizon 2020, including newcomers. For this 
purpose,  it  endeavours  continuously  to  lower  the  barriers  to  application  and 
participation through simplification. These efforts are bearing fruit, as reflected in 
statistics  on  the  first  calls  for  proposals  under  Horizon  2020,  which  showed  an 
increased participation of newcomers. 

Within  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that,  as  stated  by  the  Director-General  of 
DG RTD in his Annual Activity Report for the year 2014, “as shown in 2012, new 
participants have an error rate nearly three times as high as recurrent participants 
(8.32% as opposed to 2.94%). New participants, though a positive element for the 
European research landscape, increase risk". 

115. 

(§  251  -  2013/PAR/0366)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  increase  the 
awareness of auditors for fulfilling their role. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  endeavours  continuously 
independent auditors for fulfilling their role. 

to 

increase 

the  awareness  of 

The Commission has raised the awareness of independent auditors, and provided 
them  with  concrete  guidance,  through  a  campaign  involving  a  document 
describing  the  10  most  common  errors  identified  and  the  manner  in  which  they 
should be addressed. 

The Commission is also running, in collaboration with National Contact Points, a 
communication  campaign 
(as  well  as 
beneficiaries)  of  the  FP7  eligibility  rules.  In  total,  22  events  have  covered  22 
Member  States  and  Associated  Countries.  These  events  have  been  attended  by  3 
500  participants,  including  at  least  300  certifying  auditors.  This  campaign  will 
continue in 2015. 

independent  auditors 

reminding 

In  addition,  the  Commission  has  established  a  feedback  system  for  certifying 
auditors.  They  are  contacted  whenever  the  Commission's  ex-post  audits  identify 
material  differences  between  the  certified  cost  statements  and  the  ex-post  audit 
findings. 

Finally, the Commission has created a helpdesk function. The "Research Enquiry 
Service" replies to any questions raised by the auditors. 

54 

 
For Horizon 2020 eligibility rules have been simplified in order to decrease the risk 
of errors. This will also contribute to facilitating the work of the external auditors. 

116. 

(§  253  -  2013/PAR/0367)  The  Parliament  supports  the  Court  of  Auditors' 
recommendation,  accepted  by  the  Commission,  to  make  controls  for  this  policy 
group  more  risk-driven,  focusing  checks  on  high-risk  beneficiaries  (for  example 
entities with less experience of Union funding) and reducing the burden of checks on 
less risky beneficiaries. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission’s system of ex-post audit is mainly risk-based. It is expected that 
83% of the ex-post audits for the period 2012-2016 will be selected using different 
risk factors. 

Different types of beneficiaries generate different types of risks related to both the 
payment stage (FP7) and the contracting stage (Horizon 2020). The research anti-
fraud  strategy  is  another  important  component  of  our  risk  driven  and  risk  based 
targeted controls. 

The commitment to risk driven checks will be implemented in conjunction with the 
commitment,  following  recommendation  2013/PARL/0365,  not  to  systematically 
increase the administrative burden on new beneficiaries. 

117. 

(§  254  - 2013/PAR/0368)  The Parliament reiterates the necessity to  strike the right 
balance between fewer administrative burdens and effective financial control. 

Commission's response: 

See  responses  to  2013/PAR/0365,  2013/PAR/0366  and  2013/PAR/0367.  As  stated 
in its Annual Activity Report for the year 2014, DG RTD considers that its overall 
control strategy  ensures  that trust, control and other policy objectives are  kept in 
balance. 

118. 

(§  258  -  2013/PAR/0369)  The  Parliament  requests  to  receive  a  copy  of the  revised 
schedule and budget which will be submitted to the ITER Council in June 2015. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  takes  note  of  the  recommendation  of  the  Parliament.  It  will 
inform  the  discharge  authority  in  due  course  about  the  discussions  of  the  ITER 
Council of November 2015 concerning the first proposal of the updated long-term 
schedule and on the steps towards the establishment of the new project Baseline. 

The  ITER  Council  of  17  and  18  June  2015  reviewed  the  progress  in  the 
development of the long-term schedule and requested the Director-General of the 
IO  to  submit  a  first  proposal  on  the  updated  long-term  schedule  for  the  ITER 
Council meeting of  November ITER 2015. The new first proposal of the  updated 
long-term  schedule  will  not  be  a  final  document  and  will  not  be  approved  by  the 
ITER Council in November. It is expected to be the first step in the establishment 
of the revised ITER baseline (schedule, scope, costs). Nevertheless, this proposal is 
expected  to  be  a  confidential  report  as  it  will  contain  data  and  estimates  still 
subject  ot  discussion  and  to  be  checked  at  each  Party  level.  Full  disclosure  may 
then not be possible until the document is fully validated by all the ITER Parties. 

119. 

(§  260  -  2013/PAR/0370)  The  Parliament  expects  to  be  informed  about  additional 
costs for these unforeseen measures (Galileo: the launch of two satellites (no. 5 and 
6) on 22 August 2014 resulted in an injection of these satellites into incorrect orbit, 
and  since  December  2014  the  satellites  have  been  gradually  moved  to  a  more 

55 

 
favourable  orbit  to  allow  their  best  possible  use,  and  the  testing  of  the  satellites' 
navigation payload is on-going). 

Commission's response: 

The  two  Galileo  satellites  launched  into  an  incorrect  orbit  in  August  2014  have 
been  re-positioned  to  improved  orbits  and  have  been  tested  to  assess  the 
performance  of  their  navigation  payload.  The  Commission  is  currently  analysing 
the  costs  and  benefits  of  their  possible  use  in  terms  of  programme  objectives, 
priorities, schedule and budget including a user impact assessment.  

The cost of the unforeseen measures related to these two satellites will not increase 
the overall budget or the final cost of the Galileo and EGNOS programme. For the 
period  2014-2020  the  overall  budget  for  these  programmes  amounts  to  EUR  7 
071,7 million and includes a contingency reserve to cover unforeseen costs.  

The European Parliament was informed about the aftermath of the August launch 
by  a  letter  of  Commissioner  Nelli  Feroci  of  29  August  2014,  personally  by 
Commissioner  Nelli  Feroci  during  the  meeting  of  the  ITRE  committee  on  24 
September  2014  and  by  Commissioner  Bieńkowska  during  the  meeting  of  the 
ITRE committee on 14 April 2015. In addition, by end 2015 the Commission will 
issue  a  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes. 
This report will include information on the allocation of Union funds. 

120. 

(§ 261 - 2013/PAR/0371) The Parliament is concerned that, as in previous years, the 
Court of Auditors has found several errors in relation to non-compliance with Union 
and national procurement rules for the TEN-T projects examined; takes note that as 
in  the  preceding  year  of  2012,  once  more  in  2013,  DG  MOVE  did  not  issue  a 
reservation  related  to  public  procurement  errors;  insists,  therefore,  that  the 
Commission undertake the necessary measures in order to exclude such errors in the 
future. 

Commission's response: 

INEA  is  entrusted  with  the  management  of  the  TEN-T  programme,  with  the 
exception of the financial instruments which are under DG MOVE's responsibility. 

The  Commission  acknowledges  that  there  are  procurement-related  risks  inherent 
to the TEN-T programme, which is the reason why the control system put in place 
by  INEA  is  designed  to  ensure  that  those  errors  are  eliminated  and  that  the 
residual error rate remains below the 2% materiality threshold. The multi-annual 
residual  error  rate  for  finalised  ex-post  controls  for  the  2007-2013  TEN-T 
programme  was  0.87%  and  thus  the  Commission  considers  that  the  implemented 
systems work effectively. 

121. 

(§  262 - 2013/PAR/0372)  The Parliament calls on the Commission,  for the sake of 
transparency,  to  publish  an  easily  accessible  annual  list  of  transport  projects  co-
financed  by  the  Union,  including  the  exact  funding  amount  for  each  individual 
project; notes that this list of projects shall include all sources of Union funding such 
as TEN-T, Horizon 2020, Cohesion and Regional Funds. 

Commission's response: 

(1) Concerning the TEN-T funding, the list of projects is available in the Financial 
(http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.html).  Another 
Transparency  System 
source  of  information  is  also  the  INEA  website  (http://inea.ec.europa.eu/en/ten-
t/ten-t_projects/ten-t_projects.html)  where  more  detailed  information  is  available 
regarding each TEN-T project. In regard to the Horizon 2020 funding, the list of 

56 

 
projects  and  additional  detailed  information  on  the  EU-funded  projects  will  be 
included in CORDIS (http://cordis.europa.eu/guidance/about-projects_en.html). In 
the Financial Transparency System of 2013 and in CORDIS there is presently no 
H2020  information  because  INEA  and  RTD  did  not  sign  any  legal  commitments 
for H2020 projects. 

(2) As far as Cohesion Policy is concerned, the recommended action is rejected as 
only  major  projects,  i.e.  projects  with  a  value  of  more  than  EUR  50  million,  are 
subject  to  Commission's  approval.  Therefore  the  Commission  (DG  REGIO)  will 
prepare  the  reports  mentioned  in  Article  53  (1)  of  the  CPR  and  will  provide  the 
information  on  transport  projects:  however,  they  will  contain  the  list  of  major 
projects only. Indeed, the Common Provisions Regulation foresees that each year 
the  Commission  provides  a  report  summarising  the  Annual  Implementation 
Reports (AIRs) received by the Member States. Since the AIRs contain information 
on  the  financial  execution  and  outputs  by  priority  axis  and  specific  objective, 
Commission  services  will  be  able  to  present  information  by  thematic  objective, 
including transport. The AIR will also provide information on the state of progress 
of implementation of major projects.  

A more detailed strategic report will be prepared by the Commission in 2017 and 
2019 and will include a detailed analysis of breakdown by category of expenditure. 
This would  therefore provide  more information on transport  expenditure.  Hence, 
that  information  on  major  projects  approved  in  the  transport  sector  will  be 
provided  to  the  EP  in  the  framework  of  the  report  foreseen  in  article 53.1  of  the 
CPR.  Moreover,  EP  will  be  informed  of  the  amount  of  expenditure  by  thematic 
objective at the same time. 

122. 

(§ 263 - 2013/PAR/0373) The Parliament urges the Commission to report every year 
how the remarks on the respective budget lines have been taken into account. 

Commission's response: 

All remarks on the respective budget lines for Transport and Tourism are carefully 
analysed, discussed with EP and taken into account. As regards the 2013 Budget, 
all remarks by EP were considered and corresponding amendments were made to 
the final Budget. Concerning the Pilot Project on "Sustainable, healthy and safe 
modes  of  transport  for  Youngsters:  cycling  school  and  urban  mobility",  it  was 
rejected  by  the  Commission  in  its  letter  on  executability  in  October  2012  and 
finally the draft amendment was rejected by the EP itself. 

123. 

(§  264  -  2013/PAR/0374)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  seek  more 
synergy between different sources of funding (for transport projects) to seek a more 
efficient allocation of Union funds. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  ensures  close  coordination  between  different 
funding 
frameworks,  in  order  to  ensure  coherence  of  priorities  and  complementarity  for 
funding of transport infrastructure projects.  

1.  With  regard  to  the  transport  infrastructure  projects  financed  from  the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  and  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds (specifically,Cohesion Fund and ERDF), the relevant Commission services 
(DG  MOVE  and  DG  REGIO)  have  signed  in  March  2014  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding establishing a general framework for cooperation, with the aim to 
ensure  consistency  of  EU  support 
transport  at  programming  and 
implementation  stages,  and  with  a  view  to  ensure  complementarity  and  avoid 

for 

57 

 
duplication  of  efforts  for  the  optimal  use  of  funding  for  transport  across  the 
Union.  

In line with the provisions of the MoU, the Commission services have: 

a)  reinforced  cooperation  on  policy  documents,  i.e.  by  ensuring  regular 
contacts  and  an  early  consultation before  the  formal  inter-service  consultation  is 
launched; 

b) strengthened cooperation with a view to ensuring, where appropriate, the 
inclusion  of  EU  transport  policy  objectives  and  priorities  in  the  Partnership 
Agreements  and  the  relevant  Operational  Programmes  to  be  agreed  between  the 
Member States (MS) and the Commission, for the allocation of the EU funds from 
the  ESI  Funds,  as  well  as  for  the  work  programmes  (annual  and  multi-annual) 
under the CEF;  

c) strengthened coordination and increased co-operation of the EU financial 

support provided to the transport projects (ESI, CEF), which covers: 

         - Strategic planning/programming of transport interventions, 

         - Preparation and decision-making procedure on financial support to specific 
projects,  

         -  Monitoring  of  programme  and  project  implementation  and  of  the  use  of 
funds by the MS.   

Several missions/meetings took place in Cohesion Countries  capitals with several 
EC  departments  in  order  to  discuss  the  synergies  &  complementarities  between 
CEF and ESIF.  

Moreover Directorate general in charge of Regional and Urban policy was actively 
involved  in  the  evaluation  of  the  project  proposals  submitted  to  the  first  CEF 
transport call in the Spring 2015, in order to ensure complementarity .   

2.  The  complementarity  of  the  CEF  with  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI) will be secured through the selection of pipeline of projects by 
the Investment Committee (EFSI) and Steering Committee (CEF). While the CEF 
requires that transport projects are eligible under the CEF legal base (Annex I to 
the  Regulation  TEN-T  Union  Guidelines),  EFSI  allows  for  financing  of  other 
transport infrastructure investments across the Union. 

A common approach on the assessment of eligibility of projects from the point of 
view  of  the  competition  law  has  been  worked  out  by  the  European  Commission, 
facilitating an appraisal process within the Commission and the EIB. 

Finally, common rules and procedures in relation to the administrative agreements 
between the European Commission and the European Investment Bank have been 
agreed and are applied to all projects financed as Financial Instruments or related 
Technical Assistance under the common Framework Administrative and Financial 
Agreement (FAFA). 

124. 

(§ 270 - 2013/PAR/0375) The Parliament asks that the budget in the framework of 
the 2014-2020 Education and Culture programmes be strengthened and increased. 

Commission's response: 

Programmes  in  the  area  of  Education  and  Culture  have  seen  their  budgetary 
envelope grow as compared to the 2007-2013 multi-annual financial framework. 

58 

 
 
 
 
125. 

This  is  particularly  true  for the  Erasmus+  programme  that  has  been designed  as 
an  integrated  programme  aiming  at  providing  opportunities  for  over  4  million 
Europeans to study, train, gain work experience and volunteer abroad. 

As from 2016, Erasmus+ should be able to reach its cruising speed.  The increase 
in PA (+30%) requested in the framework of DB 2016 should allow absorption of 
the shortfall in payment appropriations this programme encountered in its first two 
years of implementation. 

(§  273  -  2013/PAR/0376)  The  Parliament  takes  note  that  the  Director-General  of 
Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  issued  a  general  reservation  with 
regard  to  the  accuracy  of  cost  claims  (EUR  3  664  million)  for  the  FP7  in  the 
Directorate-General's  annual  activity  report,  although  he  himself  expects  the  ‘net 
financial  impact  of  errors’,  based  on  1552  closed  projects,  to  be  around  2,09  %, 
meaning  close  to  the  materiality  threshold;  considers  that  such  reservations  render 
the term ‘sound financial management’ meaningless; calls therefore on the Director-
General to use reservations, in future, in a more specific and targeted way. 

Commission's response: 

In its Annual Activity Report for the year 2014, DG RTD has aimed to respond to 
this concern of the Parliament. 

The Annual Activity Report includes extensive information about the legality and 
regularity and the sound financial management of all financial transactions under 
the responsibility of the Director-General for Research and Innovation. 

The  Annual  Activity  Report  has  been  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  standing 
Commission guidelines, which stipulate that once errors pertaining to a budgetary 
area exceed the materiality threshold a general reservation should be introduced. 

In  order  to  respond  to  the  concern  of  the  Parliament,  the  reasoning  behind  the 
general  reservation  has  been  explained  in  detail  and  an  effort  has  been  made  to 
identify areas not affected by an error rate exceeding the materiality threshold. 

The Court of Auditors' 2013 annual report states that (§8.31) "the Court reviewed 
the annual activity reports of DG RTD,…The Court found that the reports provide 
a  fair  assessment  of  financial  management  in  relation  to  the  regularity  of 
underlying  transactions,  and  the  information  provided  corroborates  the  Court’s 
findings and conclusions in most respects." 

126. 

(§  274  -  2013/PAR/0377)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  provide 
information, in time for the 2013 Commission's discharge follow-up report, about the 
average  length  of  adversarial  procedures  before  recovery  in  this  policy  group 
(Research and other internal policies). 

Commission's response: 

The  calculation  of  an  average  length  of  adversarial  procedures  before  recovery 
would  not  provide  meaningful  information.  The  reason  is  the  great  diversity  of 
possible recovery scenarios. 

To give just one example, overpayments can be recovered immediately, through an 
immediate  recovery  order.  More  commonly,  however,  and  particularly  in  the 
context  of  on-going  projects,  overpayments  are  recovered  through  offsetting 
against pending future payments. Research projects are multi-annual and involve 
payments  at  different  stages.  Substantive  payments  (not  pre-financing)  only  start 
around 2 years after the beginning of the project. Payments are then made with 18-

59 

 
24  month  intervals  so  there  will  often  be  a  considerable  time  lag  between  the 
identification of a recovery and the effective recovery through offsetting. 

In all cases, extreme care is taken to respect the right of the beneficiaries through 
exhaustive  contradictory  procedures  enabling  them  fully  to  argue  their  position, 
which self-evidently has an impact on the speed of recovery. 

In its annual report for 2012 the Court recommended that the Commission reduce 
delays in the implementation of ex post audits. In 2014 the Court assessed that this 
recommendation had been implemented in most respects. 

127. 

(§  275  -  2013/PAR/0378)  The  Parliament  regrets  that  the  Commission  did  still  not 
send  the  list  of  beneficiaries  by  country;  expects  to  receive  an  answer  in  the  2013 
Commission discharge follow-up report. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  makes  available  to  the  public  information  related  to  all  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  Framework  programme,  as  well  as  their  Member  State.  ( 
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_fr.html) 

Furthermore  the  Commission  is  willing  to  provide  further  information  on  any 
specific  question  from  MEPs.  However,  the  Commission  underlines  that  the 
Research and Innovation programmes are not established by Member State, but at 
a European level with excellence, and not Memnber State, as the key for making 
grants. 

128. 

(§  276  -  2013/PAR/0379)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  assess  whether 
any  financial  corrections  will  have  to  be  imposed  (audit  report  on  the  operational 
costs for two programmes (Lifelong learning EUR 6,9 million, Youth in Action EUR 
1,65 million) running in Turkey in 2012 and 2013). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has assessed whether any financial corrections had to be imposed 
following  the  ad-hoc  audit  report  on  the  operational  costs  for  two  programmes 
(Lifelong learning EUR 6,9 million, Youth in Action EUR 1,65 million) running in 
Turkey in 2012 and 2013.  

While a number of systems weaknesses had indeed been identified which have now 
been rectified, no proposals for recoveries arose directly from this audit.  

In  addition,  in  a  further  financial  audit  of  the  Turkish  National  Agency,  no 
material issues were identified with the handling of programme funds.  

The  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  has  also  been  informed  of  both  the 
allegations  and  the  steps  taken  by  the  Commission.  As  OLAF  does  not  usually 
issue comments on cases it may or may not be treating (this is in order to protect 
the  confidentiality  of  any  possible  investigations,  ensuing  judicial  proceedings, 
personal  data  and  procedural  rights),  the  Commission  is  continuing  to  monitor 
closely the situation as regards management costs of running the National Agency, 
which are co-funded by the Commission and the national authorities. 

129. 

(§  277  -  2013/PAR/0380)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  provide 
supplementary  information  on  spending  for  the  Information  and  Communication 
Technologies  Policy  Support  Programme  in  time  for  the  2013  Commission's 
discharge follow-up report. 

60 

 
Commission's response: 

The AAR 2013 of DG CONNECT provided full transparency, giving an indication 
for  the  residual  error  rate,  the  amount  at  risk  and  the  materiality.  The  carefully 
considered decision not to issue a reservation on the CIP ICT PSP payments was 
based  on  the  fact  that  the  error  rate  could  not  be  used  for  extrapolation  and 
drawing sound conclusions given the limited sample (14 closed audits). In view of 
the  control  results  which  became  available  in  2014,  a  reservation  with  regard  to 
the  accuracy  of  costs  claims  for  grants  in  the  CIP  ICT  PSP  has  been  made  (see 
AAR 2014). Certain simplification measures have been implemented for CIP ICT 
PSP  but  given  that  all  contracts  under  CIP  have  already  been  signed,  a  further 
modification  of  the  legal  framework  is  no  longer  an  option.  DG  CONNECT 
continues to implement its non-research audit strategy (with 42 audits initialled in 
2014  and  further  95  audits  to  be  launched  for  2015).  In  the  new  financial 
framework, the programmes integrating the CIP ICT PSP strands, namely H2020 
and the Connecting Europe Facility, take advantage of the simplification provided 
for in the revised Financial Regulation and its Rules of Application. 

130. 

(§  278  -  2013/PAR/0381)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  report 
comprehensively,  in  time  for  the  2014  discharge  procedure,  on  the  increasing 
"policy-orientation"  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  which 
was triggered by outsourcing the management of two-thirds of the FP7's operational 
costs to non-Commission bodies. 

Commission's response: 

The  Annual  Activity  Report  of  the  Director-General  of  Directorate-General  for 
Research  and  Innovation  for  2014  provided  considerable  detail  on  its  role  as  a 
policy-oriented DG."  

The following aspects could be highlighted: the Directorate-General for Research 
and  Innovation  (DG  RTD)  defines  and  implements  European  Research  and 
Innovation  (R&I)  policy  with  a  view  to  achieving  the  goals  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  and  its  key  flagship  initiative,  the  Innovation  Union.  To  do  so,  the 
Directorate-General  (DG)  contributes  to  the  European  Semester  by  analysing 
national  R&I  policies,  by  assessing  their  strengths  and  weaknesses,  and  by 
formulating  country  specific  recommendations  where  necessary.  It  monitors  and 
contributes  to  the  realisation  of  the  Innovation  Union  flagship  initiative  and  the 
completion of the European Research Area (ERA). It funds excellent R&I through 
Framework Programmes taking a strategic programming approach. 

The DG's long-term objective is to make Europe a better place to live and work, by 
developing  and  implementing  R&I  policy  to  improve  Europe's  competitiveness, 
boost  its  growth,  create  jobs,  and  tackle  the  main  current  and  future  societal 
challenges. 

In addition, it carries out Horizon 2020 policy-related activities (e.g. definition of 
work  programmes,  coordination  of  the  Research  family  of  DGs,  etc)  while 
reducing  its  direct  involvement  in  contract  management  (e.g.  calls,  contract 
finalisation,  payments,  etc).  Many  of  the  implementation  functions  related  to 
Horizon  2020  have  now  been  delegated  to  the  Executive  Agencies,  Joint 
Undertakings and 'Article 185 initiatives'. 

DG RTD notes the Parliament's interest in this question and will ensure that this is 
extensively covered in the AAR 2015. 

61 

 
131. 

(§  279  -  2013/PAR/0382)  The  Parliament  asks the  Commission  to  provide,  in  time 
for  the  2014  discharge  procedure,  an  overview  listing  the  policy  progress  between 
FP7 and HORIZON 2020 for researchers and SMEs. 

Commission's response: 

Horizon 2020 has been launched in December 2013. Aimed at spurring economic 
growth and creating jobs, it represents a radical change from the previous research 
framework  programmes,  as  it  brought  together  in  a  single  strategic  framework 
formerly  separate  research  and  innovation  programmes,  introducing  major 
reforms,  an  important  increase  in  budget,  coupling  research  to  innovation  with 
support  at  every  stage  to  bring  research  results  'from  lab  to  market'  and  a 
challenge-based  approach  through  which  the  bulk  of  Horizon  2020's  investment 
will  be  made  in  solving  major  societal  challenges,  based  on  a  problem-solving 
approach.  

Furthermore,  Horizon  2020  has  a  simple  architecture,  centred  on  three  pillars, 
which  makes  it  easy  for  participants  to  identify  funding  opportunities:  'Excellent 
Science', which aims to reinforce and boost the excellence of the EU's science base 
and  to  consolidate  the  European  Research  Area  in  order  to  make  the  Union’s 
research  and  innovation  system  more  competitive  globally,  and  which  has 
benefited  from  a  large-scale  increase  in  the  budget  allocated  to  the  European 
Research  Council; 
the 
'Industrial  Leadership',  which  aims 
development  of  the  technologies  and  innovations  that  will  underpin  tomorrow's 
businesses  and  help  innovative  European  SMEs  to  grow  into  world  leading 
companies;  and  'Societal  Challenges',  through  which  Horizon  2020  reflects  the 
policy priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and addresses major concerns shared 
by  people  in  Europe  -  a  challenge-based  approach  will  bring  together  resources 
and knowledge across different fields, technologies and disciplines. 

to  speed  up 

The "three pillar" structure is complemented by the specific objectives 'Spreading 
excellence and widening participation' and 'Science with and for society'. Part of 
Horizon  2020's  budget  also  goes  towards  funding  the  European  Institute  of 
Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT),  research  activities  carried  out  under  the 
Euratom Treaty and research carried out by the Joint Research Centre. Overall, in 
the  implementation  of  Horizon  2020,  account  is  taken  of  the  need  to  build 
appropriate  synergies  and  complementarities  between  national  and  European 
research and innovation programmes. 

Radical simplification is one of the major features of Horizon 2020, the main aim 
being  to  make  the  programme  more  attractive  to  the  best  researchers  and  most 
innovative  companies  and  to  minimise  financial  errors.  Simplification  is  fully 
reflected in its design, rules, financial management and implementation. Horizon 
2020  aim  to  attract  the  strong  participation  of  universities,  research  centres, 
industry  and  specifically  SMEs  and  is  open  to  new  participants,  as  it  brings 
together  the  full  range  of  research  and  innovation  support  in  one  common 
strategic  framework,  including  a  streamlined  set  of  forms  of  support,  and  uses 
rules for participation with principles applicable to all actions under Horizon 2020. 

20  percent  of  the  combined  budget  allocated  to  ‘Societal  Challenges’  and  to  the 
specific objective ‘Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies’ is reserved 
for SMEs. Out of that 20 percent, 7 percent is disbursed through a dedicated SME-
instrument. 

62 

 
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 

132. 

(§ 281 - 2013/PAR/0383) The Parliament points out that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 
No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council in force since 1 October 
2013  obliges  OLAF  to  guarantee  the  independent  functioning  of  the  Supervisory 
Committee  (OLAF-SC)  Secretariat  (Recital  40  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No 
883/2013);  is  unaware,  at  this  stage,  of  measures  taken  to  implement  this  legal 
obligation; urges the Commission to take immediate steps to remedy the situation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has already been taken by OLAF to the extent possible within 
the limits of Regulation 883/2013. 

With  the  adoption  of  Regulation  883/2013,  the  legislator  took  a  decision  on  the 
administrative  organisation  and  budget  of  the  SC.  The  Regulation  states  that  the 
establishment plan  of  the SC Secretariat  should  be  part of  that of the Office  and 
that  the  total  appropriations  for  the  Office,  the  SC  and  its  Secretariat,  should  be 
entered under the same budget line. OLAF has undertaken measures to guarantee 
the independent functioning and the financial autonomy of the SC and its budget. 
In agreement with the SC, specific budget justifications were included in the 2016 
OLAF Draft Budget which allow for the identification of the expenditure of the SC 
Members  (EUR  200  000)  and  of  the  financial  and  human  resources  allocated  to 
the SC Secretariat (EUR 1 000 000).  

Furthermore, OLAF Director-General has delegated as far as possible the powers 
of Appointing Authority and Authorising Officer to the Head of the SC Secretariat, 
as  acknowledged  by  the  SC  itself  in  Opinion  01/2015  on  OLAF’s  Preliminary 
Draft Budget for 2016. 

In a spirit of cooperation, and despite the constraint of general staff reduction, in 
2013  OLAF  reinforced  the  SC  Secretariat  to  eight  staff  members,  which  is  the 
maximum number of staff that the SC has ever had. Decisions on recruitment and 
promotions of the SC Secretariat staff are taken in close consultation with the SC 
Members. 

The Head of the Secretariat is the authorising officer by sub-delegation for the line 
of  expenditure  related  to  the  SC.  He  has  full  independence  as  regards  the  SC 
missions,  being  granted  the  role  of  authorising  officer  by  sub-delegation  for 
mission  orders  and  related  reimbursement  claims  of  his  staff  for  the  budget 
allocated. In addition,  OLAF and  the  SC had  agreed on implementing principles 
for  the  budget  of  the  SC,  notably  concerning  the  training  sessions  and  internal 
meetings, where the Head of the Secretariat has a wide margin of manoeuvre, as 
long as the principles of budgetary legality and sound financial management are 
respected. 

133. 

(§ 282 - 2013/PAR/0384) The Parliament calls on OLAF to consult the OLAF-SC in 
a timely manner prior to modifying instructions to staff on investigation procedures 
and prior to setting investigation policy priorities. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has already been taken. In the past, OLAF has consulted the 
SC  on  its  guidelines  to  staff  on  investigation  procedures  and  on  its  investigation 
policy priorities in line with Regulation 883/2013 and the Working Arrangements 
between OLAF and the SC, and is committed to do so also in the future.  

63 

 
In  particular,  in  July  2013,  OLAF  sent  to  the  SC  the  draft  Guidelines  on 
Investigation  Procedures  to  which  the  SC  provided  comments  before  their  entry 
into  force  on  1  October  2013.  The  2014  draft  investigation  policy  priorities  were 
sent to the SC in early December 2013 and adopted at the beginning of February 
2014.  On  6  February  2014  the  SC  adopted  an  Opinion  on  OLAF  Investigation 
Policy Priorities, to which OLAF replied on 6 March 2014. Furthermore, the 2014 
and  2015  investigation  policy  priorities  were  discussed  in  the  context  of  the 
Exchange  of  Views  with  the  Institutions  on  8  April  2014,  in  which  the  SC 
participated.  OLAF  forwarded  to  the  SC  the  2015  draft  investigation  policy 
priorities,  more  than  one  month  prior  to  their  publication,  on  8  December  2014. 
The SC provided its comments prior to their publication.  

The 2016 investigation policy priorities will be discussed in the Exchange of Views 
with  the  Institutions  foreseen  for  28  September  2015,  in  which  the  SC  will 
participate. 

134. 

(§  283  -  2013/PAR/0385)  The  Parliament  regrets  the  fact  that  OLAF  does  not 
necessarily  implement  the  OLAF-SC's  recommendations,  sometimes  even  without 
giving a justification; calls on the Director-General to improve his cooperation in this 
respect. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has already been taken. 

2014  was  the  first  year  in  which  the  SC  has  decided  to  follow-up  on  the 
recommendations previously issued. Hence, it was a new exercise for both the SC 
and OLAF. OLAF gave careful consideration to all SC recommendations and has 
invested  considerable  resources 
them.  OLAF  has  provided 
justifications to the SC on the status of the implementation on various occasions, 
also  in  response  to  the  SC  report  on  the  Implementation  by  OLAF  of  the 
Supervisory Committee's recommendations of 17 November 2014. 

implement 

to 

However,  some  of  the  SC  recommendations  were  not  clearly  formulated  and 
sometimes concerned specific investigative acts of the past, or suggested actions for 
the past which cannot be retroactively implemented by OLAF. Finally, it should be 
noted  that,  even  though  OLAF  always  considers  all  the  Supervisory  Committee's 
recommendations,  there  is  no  legal  obligation  for  OLAF  to  implement  each  of 
SC’s recommendations.  

The  SC  has  currently  no  formalised  procedure  in  place  for  following-up  on  the 
implementation  of  its  recommendations.  OLAF  and  the  SC  have  recently 
intensified discussions and have had several meetings on this matter. The SC has 
decided  to  improve  the  exercise  and  will  set  up  a  procedure.  Of  the  50 
recommendations issued by the SC between 2012 and 2014, OLAF considers that 
42 have been implemented, 2 are still ongoing, while 6 have been rejected. 

135. 

(§  286  -  2013/PAR/0386)  The  Parliament  asks  OLAF  to  provide  more  detailed 
statistics on the frequency of the opening and closing of investigations in its Annual 
Report. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. OLAF already provides statistics on a wide 
range  of  indicators  including  numbers  of  investigations  opened  and  closed. 
Notably,  Figure  5  in  the  OLAF  Report  2014  provides  in  the  same  chart 
information  on  the  number  of  investigations  opened  and  concluded  over  the  last 

64 

 
five years. In 2013, 253 investigations were opened and 293 were closed. In 2014, 
234 investigations were opened and 250 were closed. 

136. 

(§ 287 - 2013/PAR/0387) The Parliament asks OLAF to provide more information to 
Parliament on the practicalities of the procedure of the case selection process, and the 
length and internal guidelines of the process. 

Commission's response: 

The  requested  action  has  been  taken.  The  OLAF  Report  2014  already  provides 
information on the selection process as well as the statistics including the average 
duration  and  results  of  it.  Notably,  Chapter  2.2  in  the  OLAF  Report  2014  is 
dedicated  to  the  selection  phase  during  which  the  Investigation  Selection  and 
Review  unit  analyses  information  received  of  possible  investigative  interest  and 
provides an opinion to the Director-General on whether or not an investigation or 
a  coordination  case  should  be  opened.  Figure  10  provides  an  overview  of  the 
evolution of the average duration of the selection phase over the last five years. 

Furthermore,  the  Director-General  of  OLAF  issued  comprehensive  and  detailed 
“Guidelines on case selection” on 5 June 2015, in which the practicalities of the 
case  selection  process  are  addressed.  These  guidelines  formalise  practices  which 
have already been followed  over the past year. 

65 

 
Administration 

137. 

(§ 288 - 2013/PAR/0388) The Parliament demands that Union taxpayers' money be 
saved  by  cutting  red  tape  and  prolonging  the  validity  of  the  established  (EPSO) 
reserve lists to at least two years; demands the Commission to report on this issue by 
June 2015. 

Commission's response: 

Before  the  EPSO  Development  Programme  of  2010,  the  absence  of  strategic  HR 
planning  meant  that  the  supply  of  new  staff  was  not  aligned  with  demand.  As  a 
result, many successful candidates remained on reserve lists indefinitely, unable to 
find jobs which caused frustration and wasted resources. 

Now,  however,  with  the  introduction  of  proper  strategic  planning,  coupled  with 
annual  competitions  and  limited  validity  of  reserve  lists,    there  is  a  much  better 
correlation between the number of laureates and the Institutions' real recruitment 
needs and the vast majority of laureates are recruited – usually over 80%.  

At the same time, EPSO has actively engaged with the Institutions to both simplify 
and  speed  up  the  formerly  slow  and  resource-intensive  recruitment  process, 
mirroring  the  improvements  that  have  been  made  to  EPSO's  own  selection 
processes.  Actions  include  removing  the  flagging  process  whereby  Institutions 
could  reserve  candidates  for  months  at  a  time;  introducing  a  comprehensive 
eligibility  check  of  supporting  documents  at  the  reserve  list  stage  obviating  the 
the 
need  for  any  further  checks  during 
implementation  of  the  Recruiter  Portal  -a  powerful  search  tool  based  on  a  more 
efficient data model allowing Institutions to efficiently identify suitable candidates 
for vacant posts and facilitating the exchange of data with the downstream systems 
for  recruitment  -  which  is  due  for  delivery  mid-2015.  As  a  result,  laureates  can 
already expect to be recruited within months. 

the  recruitment  process;  and 

At  a  recent  EPSO  interinstitutional  Working  Group  meeting,  a  draft  agreement 
concerning the non-prolongation of reserve lists pre-dating 2007 was reached. All 
lists over three years old which have been 80% used will also be presented to the 
Working Group for decision concerning possible closure. It was agreed that used-
up lists will not be prolonged. 

138. 

(§  289  -  2013/PAR/0389)  The  Parliament  asks  that  the  Commission  provide 
Parliament with information about the highest pension paid in 2013 for Commission 
officials. 

Commission's response: 

In  line  with  the  practice  of  the  budgetary  discharge  process  followed  in  previous 
years, information is available on the whole of the EU institutions and bodies, as 
there are no specific pensions associated with individual EU institutions or bodies. 
EU  pension  rights  are  acquired  by  staff  in  proportion  to  the  service  rendered 
throughout  their  whole  career  across  all  institutions  and  bodies.  In  addition,  all 
pension  payments  are  financed  out  of  a  single  budget  line,  within  the 
Commission's budget. 

139. 

(§ 290 - 2013/PAR/0390) The Parliament calls on the Commission to fully apply the 
Staff Regulations (provisions for dealing with poorly performing staff). 

66 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  decided  to  apply  as  early  as  2014  the  possibility  to  block  the 
salary  of  staff  in  case  of  unsatisfactory  performance  recorded  in  the  appraisal 
report.  Given  the  impact  on  the  career  of  staff,  it  chose  to  do  so  only  if  factual 
evidence of unsatisfactory performance could be provided by the line manager. At 
the  same  time,  DG  HR  intensified  efforts  to  train  and  support  line  managers  in 
order to improve performance management in the Commission and to better deal 
with poor performance. 

140. 

(§ 291 - 2013/PAR/0391) The Parliament asks for information about staff outside the 
establishment  plan  and  staff  costs 
than 
"administration". 

from  headings  other 

financed 

Commission's response: 

A  global  picture  of  the  staff  situation  in  the  Commission  is  transmitted  to  the 
Budget Authority every year in the framework of the annual budget procedure in a 
dedicated  working  document.  For  the  year  2013,  the 
information  about 
Commission  staff  in  place  on  1  April  2012,  with  distinction  of  financing  sources 
(heading 5, other headings, assigned revenue) can be found in Working Document 
II  of  DB2013  (tables  pp.  8-10,    28-38).  The  Commission  request  for  the  draft 
budget 2013, including appropriations for the external staff, including former 'BA-
lines', can be found in the same working document (pp. 52-53, 75-77). In addition, 
details  on  staff  related  expenditure  with  a  split  between  establishment  plan  posts 
and external staff per policy area is presented in the annual Budget. 

141. 

(§  292  -  2013/PAR/0392)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  update  the 
2011  report  on  career  equivalence  and  report  on  the  staff  expenditure  generated  in 
2013 by non-management AD13 and AD14 staff. 

Commission's response: 

Following the entry into force of Regulation No 1023/2013, there is no legal basis 
for  the  Commission  to  update  the  2011  Report  on  career  equivalence.  The  co-
legislators explicitly removed from Article 6 of the Staff Rules all references to the 
requirement  (and  the  periodic  assessment)  of  equivalence  of  career  between  pre- 
and post-2004 career structures. 

As  concerns  the  introduction  of  the  AD13  and  AD14  grades  for  non-managers 
pursuant to Council Regulation No 723/2004, to which the EP issued a favourable 
opinion, we draw the Honourable Member's attention to the following  

1)  staff  at  the  then  A4  (or  A*12)  grade  would  have  been  entitled  to  automatic 
salary steps every two years, resulting in a salary up to a level approximately equal 
to the third step in the AD13 grade (see Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Rules), 
without any promotion being necessary. Therefore, calculating a reliable estimate 
of  the  actual  additional  staff  expenditure  generated  in  2013  by  the  very 
introduction  in  2004  of  the  possibility  for  non-managers  to  access  the  AD13  and 
AD14  grades  as  compared  to  the  previous  situation,  might  be  complex  as  this 
would require some working assumptions to be made. 

2)  this staff, even if not deemed to be managers pursuant to the  definition of the 
Staff  Rules,  might  be  assigned  to  tasks  of  comparable  level,  such  as  Adviser, 
Senior Expert, Deputy Head of Unit, Head of Task Force, etc. 

3) following to the entry into force of Regulation No 1023/2013, the possibility to 
access to AD13 and AD14 grades has been substantially reduced (see Annex IB). 

67 

 
142. 

(§  293  -  2013/PAR/0393)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  provide 
information  about  the  financing  of  all  social,  sports  and  cultural  measures  for  its 
staff, including the benefits of those measures on the performance and the integration 
of expatriates and their families. 

Commission's response: 

Such information is provided each year in the framework of the Budget procedure. 
Detailed  information  on  social  measures  is  listed  in  the  yearly  Draft  General 
Budget Working Document  VI on administrative expenditure. This  was issued in 
May 2013 for the Budget year 2013. 

143. 

(§ 294 - 2013/PAR/0394) The Parliament asks the Commission to report on the use 
of flexitime in the follow-up to the 2013 Commission discharge. 

Commission's response: 

In  2014,  following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  Staff  Regulations  and  the 
Commission  Decision  on  Working  Time,  flexitime  became  the  default  working 
regime.  Thus  all  staff  (with  exclusions,  e.g.  managers)  now  use  the  flexitime 
scheme.  

It  is  worth clarifying that  the  purpose  of  the flexitime  scheme  is  to  allow  staff  to 
manage their normal working time more efficiently and does not necessarily imply 
recuperation of extra working hours. 

144. 

(§ 296 - 2013/PAR/0395) The Parliament calls on the Commission to carry out an in-
depth  study  on  the  reasons  for  these  differences  (in  pay  levels  for  civil  servants 
working  for  Union  institutions  and  for  those  working  for  national  administrations) 
and  to  develop  a  long-term  strategy  to  reduce  these  differences,  whilst  paying 
particular attention to the different allowances (family, expatriation, installation and 
resettlement allowances),  annual leave, holidays, travel days, and compensation for 
over-time. 

Commission's response: 

There have already been studies comparing salaries of EU officials and salaries in 
international companies and national diplomatic services.  

Changes in the Staff Regulations in force since 2014 did not foresee any revision 
of the remuneration system of the EU officials. 

145. 

(§  297  -  2013/PAR/0396)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commissioners  to  shoulder 
their  political  responsibility  and  stop  allowing  themselves  to  be  limited  by  the 
Secretariat-General  in  their  answers  (20-line  limit  for  answers  to  parliamentary 
questions). 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  introduced  the  limitation  in  the  light  of  an  ever-increasing 
number of Parliamentary questions. The system of Parliamentary questions is not 
intended to explain EU policies in detail or to replace information that is publicly 
available  but  rather  to  give  the  Commission  the  possibility  to  reply  to  political 
questions  of  general  interest  and  present  the  Commission's  position.  This  has 
proved  to  be  feasible  within  the  space  limit.  Moreover,  it  is  possible  to  attach  to 
replies annexes with more detailed factual  information such as reports, statistics, 
etc, where appropriate. 

68 

 
146. 

(§ 298 - 2013/PAR/0397) The Parliament is concerned about the protection afforded 
to whistle-blowers and calls on the Commission to ensure that their rights are fully 
upheld. 

Commission's response: 

Issued on 6 December 2012, Commission guidelines on whistleblowing provide for 
a  solid  protection  offered  to  whistleblowers  acting  in  good  faith.  Whistleblowers 
are protected and their identity must remain confidential if they so wish. Particular 
care  is  taken  to  ensure  that  the  whistleblower  suffers  no  adverse  consequences 
during his/her career. 

147. 

(§  299  -  2013/PAR/0398)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  present  to  the 
Parliament the Union added value of the money channelled via these NGOs (NGOs 
having received in 2013 almost EUR 9 million from DG Environment, almost EUR 4 
million  from  DG  Health  and  Consumers  and  EUR  5,7  million  from  DG 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion). 

Commission's response: 

The funding of NGOs by DG ENV is specified as a priority  in Article 12 d of the 
Legal base of the LIFE programme (Regulation of the European Parliament and 
the  Council    on  the  establishment  of  a  Programme  for  the  Environment  and 
Climate  Action  LIFE  n°  1293/2013).  This  Article  define  as  objective  of  this 
programme    :  "to  promote  better  environmental  governance  by  broadening 
stakeholder involvement, including NGOs, in consultation on and implementation 
of policy." 

the  previous 

The added value of those actions have been evaluated in the final evaluation report 
issued  on  12  December  2012 
of 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/121214_conclusions.pdf 
) 
and  will  again  be  evaluated  in  the  Mid  Term  Evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  new 
LIFE programme that will be launch in 2016. 

legal  base  LIFE+, 

DG  Health  and  Consumers  co-funded  NGOs  through  the  programmes  of  EU 
action in the fields of both health policy (2008-2013) and consumer policy (2007-
2013). The programmes were established by decisions of the European Parliament 
and the Council with the aim to complement, support and add value to the policies 
of the Member States and to contribute to the achievement of the policy objectives 
in  public  health  and  consumer  affairs.  In  particular,  the  health  programme 
supported  operating  costs  of  NGOs  and  networks  that  contribute  to  achieving  at 
least one of its objectives concerning health security, health promotion and health 
information. The Commission evaluates the Health Programme and disseminates 
its results to the Council and the European Parliament on a regular basis, see for 
instance: 
report: 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/implementation_2013_en.pdf  and  The 
2008-2013: 
mid-term 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/mid-term_eval_hp2008-2013.pdf 
By 
the  end  of  2015,  the  Commission  intends  to  submit  to  the  European  Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the  Regions  an  external  and  independent  ex-post  evaluation  report  covering  the 
implementation and results of the Health Programme 2008-2013.) 

implementation 

Programme 

evaluation 

Health 

latest 

The 

of 

DG  Employment  and  Social  Affairs  is  providing  funding  to  EU  level  NGOs 
networks active in the promotion of social inclusion and poverty reduction as well 
as  in  the  area  of  access  to  finance  notably  via  the  EU  Programme  PROGRESS 

69 

 
2007-2013  (Decision  No  1672/2006/EC).  The  evaluation  and  the  performance 
monitoring  of  PROGRESS  demonstrate  that  civil  society  organisations  were 
usually engaged in projects because of their specific expertise, having the capacity 
to reach out to certain groups or as organisations delivering a service that was the 
focus  of  the  project.  One  of  the  key  aspects  for  creating  EU  added  value  is  the 
capacity  of  the  key  EU  networks/NGOs  to  exercise  influence  on  policymaking  in 
relevant  policy  areas  and  make  a  difference  on  policy  process.  A  survey  showed 
that  EU-level  networks  and  NGOs  were  a  source  of  useful  and  appropriate 
information, especially in informing on the conditions, needs and expectations of 
target groups and on the application of EU law in the MS. 

148. 

(§  300  -  2013/PAR/0399)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  provide 
Commissioners  who  have  been  in  office  for  less  than  two  years  with  a  transitional 
allowance for a period which does not exceed their term of office as a Commissioner. 

Commission's response: 

Emoluments  of  Commissioners  are  regulated  by  Council  Regulation  for  which 
Commission has no power of initiative. 

149. 

(§  302  -  2013/PAR/0400)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  launch  an 
equal  opportunities  scheme  designed  to  remedy  this  imbalance  (lack  of  women  in 
positions  of  responsibility  at  the  Commission)  as  soon  as  possible,  particularly  at 
management level. 

Commission's response: 

Yes. Partially Implemented. 

The Commission adopted in 2010 an equal opportunity strategy with clear targets 
for period 2010-2014 that have been reached or even exceeded.  

The  Commission  is  committed  to  reach  a  40%  female  representation  in 
management position by 2019 and will issue, in the course of 2015, a new strategy 
covering years 2015-2019. 

70 

 
Getting results from the Union budget 

150. 

(§  304  -  2013/PAR/0401)  The  Parliament  requests  that  in  order  to  reverse  this 
incentive  (focused  first  on  the  need  to  spend  the  Union  money  available)  and  to 
change  towards  a  culture  of  good  performance,  an  independent  high-level  working 
group (including academics) on the performance of the Union budget be convened in 
order to make recommendations to structurally  shift the incentive from spending to 
good performance, based on an assessment of Union added value, while respecting 
compliance  with  the  rules;  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  findings  of  this  high-level 
working  group  should  be  available  in  due  time  before  the  mid-term  review  of  the 
current MFF and form the basis for the new MFF programming period. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  initiated  the  setup  of  an  Inter-Institutional  Working  Group 
on  Performance  Base-Budgeting  to  agree  on  a  common  understanding  of  the 
performance  framework  of  the  EU  budget  (please  refer  also  to  recommendation 
2013/PAR/0255).  Vice-President  Kristalina  Georgieva  invited  the  European 
Parliament, 
(Ref. 
Ares(2015)1855084 - 30/04/2015) to appoint members of the Working Group and 
provide  comments  on  the  proposed  draft  Terms  of  Reference  elaborating  on  the 
scope,  objectives  and  working  methods.  Inter-institutional  discussions  following 
this invitation are ongoing. 

the  European  Court  of  Auditors 

the  Council  and 

151. 

(§ 305 - 2013/PAR/0402) The Parliament reiterates its demand that the Directorates-
General  of  the  Commission  define  in  their  Management  Plan  a  limited  number  of 
simple  targets,  meeting  the  Court  of  Auditors'  requirements  in  terms  of  relevance, 
comparability  and  reliability  and  linked  to  the  main  goals  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  that  they  report  on  their  achievement  in  their  annual  activity  report  in  a 
chapter entitled "Policy Achievements" and that the Commission adopts on that basis 
the evaluation report on the Union's finances as provided for in Article 318 TFEU. 

Commission's response: 

The  2013  and  2014  AARs  of  the  Commission's  Directorates-General  reported  on 
the 2013 and 2014 progress in achieving milestones and long-term targets defined 
in the 2013 and 2014 Management Plans of the Directorates-General on the basis 
of progress and performance indicators. The 2013 and 2014 AARs also included a 
summary  of  evaluations  and  performance  audits  carried  out.  The  fourth  (on  the 
year 2013) and fifth (on the year 2014) editions of the evaluation report provided 
an overall assessment of the results and impacts of the EU financial programmes 
based on the performance information contained in the AARs. 

152. 

(§ 306 - 2013/PAR/0403) The Parliament demands that the Commission includes in 
the  next  evaluation  reports  provided  for  in  Article  318  TFEU  an  analysis  of  the 
efficiency, the effectiveness and the results achieved in terms of growth and jobs by 
the  investment  plan  of  EUR  315  billion  announced  by  the  President  of  the 
Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, on 26 November 2014 in the plenary session of 
Parliament. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  on  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (COM  (2015)10  final) 
includes  reporting  and  evaluation  provisions,  which  foresee  regular  reporting  to 

71 

 
the  European  Parliament,  including  outcomes  and  impacts  of  EIB  financing,  by 
the EIB and the European Commission. 

153. 

(§ 307 - 2013/PAR/0404) The Parliament demands that in the next evaluation report 
provided  for  in  Article  318  TFEU,  the  Commission  includes  an  analysis  made  in 
cooperation with the European Investment Bank on the efficiency, the effectiveness 
and the results achieved by the Growth and Jobs plan of EUR 120 billion adopted by 
the European Council in its meeting of 28 and 29 June 2012. 

Commission's response: 

The  evaluation  report  is  reporting  on  the  Growth  and  Jobs  plan  adopted  by  the 
European Council in June 2012 in as far as actions have been financed by the EU 
budget.  For  example,  in  the  fourth  edition  of  the  evaluation  report  (on  the  year 
2013)  account  has  been  given  of  the  reprogramming  of  the  Structural  Funds/ 
Cohesion Fund, which was part of the Growth and Jobs plan. The fifth edition of 
the  evaluation  report  (on  the  year  2014)  includes  information  on  the  results 
achieved  through  the  Project  Bond  Initiative,  also  part  of  the  Growth  and  Jobs 
plan. 

154. 

(§ 308 - 2013/PAR/0405) The Parliament insists that the internal organisation of the 
Commission, chaired by Jean-Claude Juncker, should take into consideration the fact 
that  the  Union  growth  and  jobs  strategy  is  not  based  on  activities  led  by  each 
individual  DG  but  encompasses  seven  cross-cutting  flagship  initiatives  which  are 
implemented each time by several Directorates-General; insists that the coordination 
and  cooperation  therefore  needed  within  the  Commission  should  not  create  new 
forms of bureaucracy and red tape. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission's new working methods set out how the Commission is organised 
and  ensure  that  work  in  the  key  areas  of  the  Political  Guidelines  is  co-ordinated 
across the Commission services. 

155. 

(§  309  -  2013/PAR/0406)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  manage  its 
budget  in  such  a  way  that  there  are  no  thematic  policy  overlaps  and  duplications 
amongst its various DGs with similar or nearly identical competences. 

Commission's response: 

EU  policies  are  managed  and  co-ordinated  taking  account  of  the  cross  cutting 
nature  of  the  DGs  activities.  This  co-ordination  in  the  key  areas  of  the  Political 
Guidelines is ensured by the new working methods of the Commission. 

156. 

(§  311  -  2013/PAR/0407)  The  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission  submit  a 
comprehensive  report  on  its  activities  to  Parliament's  competent  committee  by 
September 2015 in order to encourage whistle-blowing by the wider public. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  rejects  the  request,  which  the  Commission  assumes  refers  to 
whistleblowing  in  the  Member  States  in  general,  not  only  to  cases  affecting  EU 
funds. As outlined below, the Commission does take action to encourage whistle-
blowing by the wider public but considers that a comprehensive report at this stage 
of  implementation  would  be  premature.  Adequate  protection  of  whistleblowers  is 
important  for  detecting  and  preventing  corruption,  and  the  EU  Anti-Corruption 
Report  published  in  February  2014  covers  whistleblowing  in  all  EU  Member 
States. The protection of whistleblowers is an important topic in the Commission's 

72 

 
bilateral  discussions  with  Member  States  on  the  follow-up  to  the  report.  The 
Commission has organised an experience sharing workshop on whistleblowing on 
2  July  in  The  Netherlands,  which  brought  together  Member  State  experts  to 
explore  solutions  to  challenges  identified  in  the  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report.  In 
addition, the Commission has funded research in this area, including an analysis 
by Transparency International on national legislation. The Horizon 2020 research 
programme  supported  with  €  3  million  the  project  DIGIWHIST  –  The  Digital 
Whistleblower:  Fiscal  Transparency,  Risk  Assessment  and  Impact  of  Good 
Governance Policies Assessed. Following two conferences at the EP in June 2015, 
the  Commission  will  continue  to  exchange  views  with  Parliament  on  potential 
avenues at EU level for encouraging and protecting whistleblowers. 

73 

 
Tobacco smuggling 

157. 

(§  313  -  2013/PAR/0408)  The  Parliament  recalls  that  Parliament  asked  in  the 
resolution  accompanying  the  2012  Commission  discharge  for  an  assessment  of  the 
existing  agreements  with  the  four  tobacco  groups  (Philip  Morris  International 
Corporation Inc. (PMI), Japan Tobacco International Corporation, British American 
Tobacco  Corporation  and  Imperial  Tobacco  Corporation);  notes  that  during  the  in 
camera  hearing  on  this  issue,  the  Commission  committed  to  presenting,  by  May 
2015, an assessment of the experiences made with respect to the agreement with PMI 
which expires soon. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is working on the requested action. The Commission is currently 
assessing  its  experiences  with  the  first  decade  of  the  2004  Anti-Contraband  and 
Anti-Counterfeit  Agreement  with  Philip  Morris  International  which  is  due  to 
expire in July 2016. As contracting parties, Member States are being consulted and 
will  also  have  to  take  a  position  on  whether  or  not  to  renew  the  agreement  and 
their feedback will feed into the assessment, which is being prepared.   

As regards the anti-fraud agreements with other tobacco manufacturers, these are 
not due to expire till 2022 and 2030 respectively. 

The  Commission  will  keep  the  European  Parliament  informed  of  any  relevant 
developments. 

74 

 
SR 11/2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right: a more structured and 
better-focused approach would improve the effectiveness of the Commission’s 
verification 

158. 

(SR, Part I, § 1 - 2013/PAR/0409) The Parliament calls on the Commission to carry 
out  a  structured  and  formalised  analysis  that  takes  into  consideration  costs  and 
benefits  allowing  it  to  plan  and  prioritise  its  verification  on  specific  areas  or 
compilation (sub-) processes; is of the opinion that such an analysis should consider 
the  risks  relating  to  the  Member  States’  compilation  of  their  national  accounts  and 
the relative size of the GNI components in the total economy; considers that this risk 
assessment should be based on all qualitative and quantitative information available 
in  all  departments  of  Eurostat  and  concentrate  on  the  compilation  procedures 
described in GNI inventories and recent GNI quality reports of Member States. 

Commission's response: 

Please  see  response  to  recommendation  n°1  of  the  ECA's  Special  Report  No  11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification. 

159. 

(SR,  Part  I,  §  2  -  2013/PAR/0410)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
shorten  the  duration  of  its  verification  cycle  in  order  to  limit  the  use  of  general 
reservations; considers that such reservations should be limited to exceptional cases 
where there are significant risks that the Union's financial interests are not protected, 
for example when a Member State carries out a major revision during the verification 
cycle or at irregular intervals. 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to recommendations n°2 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification,  2013/PAR/0270, 2013/PAR/0271 

160. 

(SR, Part I, § 3 - 2013/PAR/0411) The Parliament calls on Eurostat to report clearly 
and  in  a  timely  manner  to  the  GNI  Committee  on  cases  where  the  cost–benefit 
principle is considered to apply. 

Commission's response: 

Please  see  response  to  recommendation  n°3  of  the  ECA's  Special  Report  No  11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification. 

161. 

(SR, Part I, § 5 - 2013/PAR/0412) The Parliament calls on the Commission to pay 
particular attention in its verifications to the exhaustiveness of Member States’ GNI 
and the use of comparable estimation procedures to cover the underground economy 
in national accounts. 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to recommendation n° 5 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification. 

75 

 
162. 

(SR,  Part  I,  §  5  -  2013/PAR/0413)  The  Parliament  calls  on  Eurostat  to  check 
whether the Commission’s guidelines are followed by all Member States and to take 
appropriate actions to ensure a comparable treatment of this issue between Member 
States. 

Commission's response: 

Please see responses to recommendations n° 5 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification,  and 2013/PAR/0412. 

163. 

(SR,  Part  I,  §  6  -  2013/PAR/0414)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
document  its  work  including  a  complete  set  of  information  relating  to  Eurostat’s 
verification  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  desk  checks  and/or  of  visits  in  the  national 
statistical  institutes  (NSIs);  considers  that  Eurostat’s  control  files  should  allow 
management to clearly identify the results of the checks carried out on the selected 
GNI components, in compliance with the internal control standards (ICS). 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to recommendation n° 6 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification.  

164. 

(SR, Part I, § 7 - 2013/PAR/0415) The Parliament calls on Eurostat to assess, where 
possible,  the  potential  impact  (for  quantifiable  observations)  and/or  the  amount  at 
risk (for non-quantifiable observations) of the action points, and set clear materiality 
criteria  in  order  to  set  specific  reservations;  considers  that  these  criteria  should  be 
either qualitative or quantitative; is of the opinion that as a general rule, reservations 
should be placed on specific GNI components relating to action points not addressed 
by the NSIs within the deadlines set and whose impact may be material. 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to recommendation n° 7 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification.  In  October  2014  a  quantitative  criterion  for  materiality  was  adopted 
by the GNI Committee. 

165. 

(SR,  Part  I,  §  8  -  2013/PAR/0416)  The  Parliament  calls  on  Eurostat  to  improve 
coordination  between  its  department  in  charge  of  the  verification  of  GNI  for  own 
resource purposes and its other departments, in particular those dealing with national 
accounts;  considers  that,  where  possible,  actions  undertaken  by  other  Eurostat’s 
departments  may  have  an  impact  on  the  compilation  of  the  gross  domestic  product 
(GDP) and/or GNI, the GNI Committee should be consulted and the final decision on 
these measures should be taken at an appropriate hierarchical level in Eurostat. 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to recommendation n° 8 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification.  

76 

 
166. 

(SR, Part I, § 9 - 2013/PAR/0417) The Parliament calls on Eurostat to improve its 
assessment  reports  to  provide  a  complete,  transparent  and  consistent  evaluation  of 
the  Member  States’  GNI  data;  considers  that  the  annual  opinions  of  the  GNI 
Committee should include a clear assessment on whether Member States’ GNI data 
are  appropriate  (or  not)  for  own  resource  purposes,  whether  their  contents  comply 
with  the  requirements  of  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1287/2003    (GNI 
Regulation)  and  whether  they  are  used  appropriately  in  the  budgetary  procedure  as 
provided  for  in  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1150/2000    (the  own 
resources’ Regulation). 

Commission's response: 

Please see response to recommendation n° 9 of the ECA's Special Report No 11/ 
2013 Getting the Gross National Income (GNI) data right A more structured and 
better-focussed  approach  would  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
verification. . The Commission has always considered reporting to be adequate and 
compliant  with  the  GNI  Regulation  and  that  the  annual  opinion  of  the  GNI 
Committee is sufficient. The Court’s recommendation on the annual opinion was 
put  to  the  GNI  Committee  and  taken  into  account  in  its  opinion  on  the  GNI  OR 
data  submitted  in  2013.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  opinions  of  the  GNI 
Committee have always been appropriately used for budgetary purposes. 

167. 

(SR, Part I, § 10 - 2013/PAR/0418) The Parliament is of the opinion that the Annual 
Activity Reports (AARs) of DG Budget and Eurostat should provide a true and fair 
view of the verification of Member States’ GNI data and of the management of GNI-
based own resources;  calls, therefore, on the Commission  to establish requirements 
for Eurostat to report regularly on the results of its verification of GNI data, allowing 
DG Budget to draw the required assurance to be used in the context of its AARs. 

Commission's response: 

The  improvement  requested  to  the  AARs  was  already  inserted  in  the  reports  for 
2012  and  as  the  reply  shows  the  Commission  considers  no  changes  need  to  be 
made concerning the use of GNI Committee opinions for own resource purposes. 

Improvements  in  the  Annual  Activity  Reports  were  made  in  2013  and  further 
improvements made in 2014. 

In particular, the enhanced cooperation between DG Budget and Eurostat allowed 
making  reference  in  the  2013  DG  BUDG  AAR  to  the  controls  performed  by 
Eurostat. 

In  2014  DG  ESTAT  revised  the  indicators  by  providing  a  clearer  view  on  the 
legality and regularity indicators referring to the annual and multi-annual cycles 
of  verification.  In  addition,  their  presentation  has  been  improved  by  articulating 
them  by  input,  output,  outcome  and  impact.  Furthermore,  ESTAT  developed  an 
Internal Control template on GNI verifications which was included in DG BUDG 
AAR. 

77 

 
SR 13/2013 EU Development Assistance to Central Asia 

168. 

(SR,  Part  II,  §  18  -  2013/PAR/0419)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
concentrate all assistance provided on a small number of sectors. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission  and  the  EEAS  are  already  concentrating  assistance  for  each 
country programme and the regional programmes under the DCI instrument. This 
is  without  prejudice  to  the  specific  nature  of  thematic  instruments,  which  have 
been designed with specific objectives by the budgetary authority. These principles 
are  applied  for  most  programmes  under  the  MIP  2007-2013  and  integral  part  of 
the entire MIP 2014-2020 and related programmes. 

169. 

(SR, Part II, § 21 - 2013/PAR/0420) The Parliament calls on the Commission to set 
up a system for calculating and reporting on the overall administrative cost involved 
in delivering its development assistance. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The reason for this is that the Commission and the EEAS consider that setting-up 
a  new  system  for  calculating  and  reporting  on  the  overall  administrative  cost 
involved  in  delivering  its  development  assistance  is  not  necessary.  Indeed,  the 
Commission and the EEAS would refer to the existing ABB system, which already 
contains  information  about  administrative  costs.  Any  change  to  it  should  be 
tackled at an institutional level and agreed with the budgetary authority. 

170. 

(SR, Part II, § 22 - 2013/PAR/0421) The Parliament requests that the Commission 
define  and  apply  robust  and  objectively  verifiable  conditions  for  any  continuing 
budget  support  programmes,  in  particular  giving  sufficient  attention  to  support  for 
anti corruption mechanisms. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Its  application  took  effect  with  the  implementation  of  the  2012  Budget  Support 
Guidelines  which  are  valid  for  all  ongoing  and  pipelined  Budget  Support 
operations. The creation of a dedicated team of professionals for Budget Support 
in  various  DEVCO  Directorates  guarantees  the  definition  and  application  of 
objectively verifiable conditions for Budget Support programmes, while sufficient 
attention to support for anti-corruption mechanisms is given. 

171. 

(SR, Part II, § 26 - 2013/PAR/0422) The Parliament calls for greater transparency in 
the allocation of funds by Union and Member States’ embassies to support genuinely 
independent non-governmental partners so as to help them play an effective role in 
the development and consolidation of civil society. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The EU Delegations follow the applicable rules and regulations as defined in the 
Financial Regulation and associated by laws. Publicity rules are clear, as are rules 
of transparency, equal treatment and non discrimination. The application of these 
rules is closely followed up and monitored. 

78 

 
172. 

(SR, Part II, § 27 - 2013/PAR/0423) The Parliament requests that the Commission 
improve the programme design and delivery in light of lessons learnt and changing 
circumstances. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission  and  the  EEAS  take  into  account  experience  to  improve 
programme design and delivery on a continuing basis through the Quality Support 
Group  reviews  and  on  the  basis  of  the  feedback  received  from  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation results. 

The  request  has  been  taken  into  account  for  both  bilateral  Annual  Action  Plan 
(AAP) 2013 projects and the Multiannual Indicative Programme (MIP) 2014-2020 
currently under preparation. 

173. 

(SR, Part II, § 28 - 2013/PAR/0424) The Parliament asks the Commission to report 
on results and impact in a way that allows comparison with plans and objectives. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  Commission  and  the  EEAS  are  already  devoting  specific  attention  to  the 
overall  results  and  impact  of  development  co-operation  with  more  targeted  and 
sustainable interventions, linked to the advancement of the policy dialogue and an 
effective  transfer  of  relevant  EU  know-how  and  policy  advice.  However,  the 
Commission and the EEAS consider that there is room for improvement and shall 
strive to enhance reporting on results and impact in the future, following the trend 
for the new DCI regulation. 

The request will be taken into account for the Multiannual Indicative Programme 
2014-2020  currently  under  preparation  and  its  related  programmes.  A  results 
framework with  practical  tools  is  currently  being  set  up  by  DG  DEVCO  services. 
The state of completion of this request can be checked once the first programmes 
under the new MIP are being evaluated. 

79 

 
SR 15/2013 Has the Environment component of the LIFE programme been effective? 

174. 

(SR,  Part  III,  §  29  -  2013/PAR/0425)  The  Parliament  stresses  the  need  for  the 
Commission to set clear, specific, measurable and achievable objectives for projects 
to be funded. 

Commission's response: 

This Recommendations is being implemented under the new LIFE Regulation as 
well  as  the  first  Multi-annual  Work  Programme  (MAWP  2014-2017)  which 
establishes specific  

Project  topics  implementing  the  thematic  priorities  of  the  Programme.  These 
project topics are setting clear, specific, measurable and achievable objectives for 
projects to be funded against which these projects will be assessed and evaluated in 
particular  against  their  capacity  to  support    EU  environmental  policies,  to 
integrate  environment  into  other  policies  and  to  lead  to  marketable  solutions  on 
the basis of their replication potential. 

175. 

(SR, Part III, § 32 - 2013/PAR/0426) The Parliament calls on the Commission to set 
clear  indicators  assessing  dissemination,  sustainability  and  replication  potential  of 
assessed projects in order to achieve the programme’s objectives. 

Commission's response: 

This Recommendations is being implemented under the new LIFE Regulation as 
well as the first Multi-annual Work Programme (MAWP 2014-2017) which foresee 
the  establishment  of  performance  indicators  (Art.  3(3)  of  the  LIFE  Regulation),   
Programme  indicators  (MAWP/Art  24(2)  (C)  of  the  LIFE  Regulation)  based  on 
project indicators reporting in particular on the of impact of projects on policies as 
well  as  on  their  replicability.  The  level  of  replicability  of  the  environmental 
solutions funded under LIFE as well as the leverage towards the private sector will 
be  an  important  element  in  assessing  the  impact  and  results  of  the  new  LIFE 
Programme  for  promoting  environmental  priorities  of  the  Regulation.  The 
Commission will report under the midterm review (2017) and final report (2020) to 
the budgetary authority about the efficiency of the LIFE Programme on the basis 
of these indicators. 

176. 

(SR,  Part  III,  §  33  -  2013/PAR/0427)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
improve its programme management tools in order to avoid non-transparent selection 
procedures. 

Commission's response: 

Opportunity  is  being  given  to  the  Commission  to  improve  the  quality  and  the 
transparency  of  the  selection  process  under  the  new  LIFE  Regulation.    The 
eligibility criteria mentioned in the first Multi Annual Work Programme (MAWP) 
foresees  specific  and  transparent  criteria  for  assessing  the  innovative  or 
demonstrative character as well as the replicability and transferability potential of 
each proposal. The content of the MAWP is binding for the forthcoming calls and 
has  been  translated  into  the  application  packages  of  the  call  as  well  as  into  the 
instructions for the external evaluators. In addition applicant are being requested 
to  provide  data  concerning  the  performance  of  their  project  in  terms  of 
,  replicability  and 
contribution 
dissemination potential as well as to continue to report their costs incurred on the 
basis of constantly updated standard templates. 

the  environment 

improvement  of 

the 

to 

80 

 
SR 16/2013 Taking stock of 'single audit' and the Commission's reliance on the work of 
national audit authorities in cohesion 

177. 

(SR, Part IV, § 43 - 2013/PAR/0428) The Parliament calls on the Court of Auditors 
and the Commission to develop an audit instrument which, on the one hand, records 
annually  errors  and  irregularities  while,  on  the  other  hand,  also  takes  into 
consideration financial correction during the programming period. 

Commission's response: 

Under  shared  management,  reporting  on  irregularities  and  errors  is  the 
responsibility of the Member States. 

As  regards  irregularities,  according  to  Article  122  of  Reg.  1303/2013,  Member 
States  shall  prevent,  detect  and  correct  irregularities  and  shall  recover  amounts 
unduly  paid,  together  with  any  interest  on  late  payments.  They  shall  notify  the 
Commission  of  irregularities  that  exceed  EUR  10  000  in  contribution  from  the 
Funds and shall keep it informed of significant progress in related administrative 
and legal proceedings. OLAF receives the irregularities reported by Member States 
on behalf of the Commission via the Irregularity Management System. 

As  regards  errors,  the  annual  control  report  will  contain  a  section  dedicated  to 
audit  of  operations  with  an  analysis  of  the  principal  results  of  the  audits  of 
operations, describing the number of sample items audited, the respective amount 
and types of error by operation, the nature of errors found. 

Concerning  the  way  to  take  into  consideration  financial  correction  during  the 
programming period, the Commission has a methodology already available: since 
AAR  2011,  the  Directorates-General  in  charge  of  cohesion  policy  calculate  a 
cumulative  residual  risk  (CRR)  for  each  programme,  an  indicator  to  assess 
whether the programme financial risk is manageable on a cumulative basis from 
the  beginning  of  implementation.  For  operational  programmes  with  validated 
error  rates  between  2%  and  5%,  a  reservation  is  made  if  the  calculated  CRR  is 
above  the  materiality  threshold  of  2%.  The  CRR  is  therefore  a  criterion  for 
additional reservations compared to the situation before AAR 2011, to follow-up a 
2010 Court observation to address the situation of programmes with an error rate 
between  2%  and  5%.  The  CRR  is  the  best  estimate  of  the  residual  risk  taking 
account  of  the  corrective  capacity  of  the  programme  over  the  period.  It  is 
calculated  by  for  each  programme  by  multiplying  the  validated  error  rates  (or 
alternatively flat rates set by the Commission) by amounts paid for each year and 
by deducting the amounts of financial corrections formally reported by certifying 
authorities  by  31  March  each  year,  adjusted  in  some  cases.  For  2014-2020,  the 
residual risk will be calculated annually in relation to the programme accounts. 

In the area of agriculture, each paying agency shall keep accounts enabling all the 
operations  for  each  programme  and  each  measure  to  be  identified,  including  the 
amounts to be recovered from beneficiaries for irregularities or negligence found 
(Reg.  908/2014).  According  to  Article  48(3)  of  Reg.  1306/2013),  Member  States 
shall  make  available  to  the  Commission  information  about  irregularities  and 
suspected  fraud  cases  detected,  as  well  as  information  about  the  steps  taken 
pursuant  to  recover  undue  payments  in  connection  with  those  irregularities  and 
frauds. The reporting on irregularities is subject to annual financial clearance of 
accounts. 

81 

 
178. 

(SR,  Part  IV,  §  44  -  2013/PAR/0429)  The  Parliament  requests  a  copy  of  this 
document  (updated  roadmap  for  the  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  correct 
implementation of the ‘single audit’ principle). 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  request  and  will  provide  a  copy  of  the  updated 
roadmap. 

82 

 
SR 17/2013 EU Climate Finance in the context of External Aid 

179. 

(SR, Part V, § 49 - 2013/PAR/0430) The Parliament reiterates Parliament's position, 
of  which  the  Court  of  Auditors  took  note  in  its  special  report,  which  insists  that 
climate finance should be additional to the 0,7 % target. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission takes note of the Parliament's position. Referring to the findings 
of the Court of Auditors' special report and the need to use all EU funds effectively 
in addressing the three pillars of sustainable development in an integrated manner, 
the  Commission  reiterates  its  position  that  financing  from  all  sources  should  be 
used in a way that allows reaching the multiple global policy objectives, including 
poverty  eradication  and  fighting  climate  change,  with  the  same  resources  and 
sometimes  through  the  same  programmes.  In  line  with  the  existing  definition  of 
Official Development Assistance (ODA), significant part of public climate finance 
corresponds  to  the  definition  of  ODA  reflecting  its  concessional  character  and 
contribution to sustainable development. In light of the situation with regard to the 
lack  of  agreed  definitions,  as  also  described  in  the  aforementioned  report  of  the 
Court of Auditors, the EU will continue to participate actively in the international 
discussions on climate finance, including possible agreements on defining climate 
finance that currently evolve into the direction of 'co-benefits'. 

180. 

(SR, Part V, § 53 - 2013/PAR/0431) The Parliament urges further improvements in 
reporting on the impact and results of development aid. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  EU  International  Cooperation  and  Development  Results  Framework  was 
launched  with  the  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2015)  80,  March  2015.  The 
results  framework  is  a  tool  to  measure  results  achieved  against  strategic 
development  objectives and will provide information on aggregated results of  EU 
assistance, including in the areas of Natural Resources and Climate Change. The 
first results report is expected by the end of 2015. 

181. 

(SR,  Part  V,  §  54  -  2013/PAR/0432)  The  Parliament  calls  for  more  earmarking  of 
funds  to  specific  sectors,  including  climate  finance  when  channelled  via  Budget 
Support, and more transparency over the use of funds overall. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Budget  Support  must  be  accounted  for  in  a  transparent  way  as  government 
resources and included in the budget of the beneficiary country. The Commission 
looks at the allocation of overall resources and the execution of the expenditures to 
ensure  that  these  reflect  the  priorities  agreed  with  the  partner  country.  As  it  is 
stated  in  the  new  budget  support  policy,  “the  Commission  will  strengthen  policy 
dialogue  to  ensure  that  major  reforms  are  discussed  and  fully  resourced", 
objectives are identified and results assessed. These are significant efforts that the 
Commission is making to make sure that European taxpayers’ money is properly 
recorded  in  the  budget  accounts  of  the  beneficiary  country  and  contributes  to 
achieving  sustainable  development  results  and  poverty  reduction.  Budget  support 
requires beneficiary countries to fulfill strict conditions to ensure positive reforms.  

83 

 
The  notion  of  “traceability”  amounts  to  the  earmarking  of  donor  resources  for 
specific expenditure items, which can then be traced in budget execution reports. It 
is  a  sovereign  decision  to  earmark  revenue  within  a  national  budget  and  many 
countries  prefer  to  follow  the  principle  of  single  budgets.  In  addition,  such  an 
earmarking presupposes a sophisticated PFM system and advanced administrative 
capacities which few LICs possess. 

182. 

(SR, Part V, § 56 - 2013/PAR/0433) The Parliament urges the Commission to step 
up  its  efforts  in  regards  to  working  with  development  partners  on  anti-corruption 
issues. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission is already stepping up its efforts and strengthening programmes 
and  capacity  building  to  fight  against  corruption  in  partner  countries.  For  the 
period 2014-2020, fight against corruption worldwide (together with public sector 
management  and  tax)  will  be  supported  by  different  EU  geographic  instruments 
(EDF, DCI and ENI) with a number of country and regional programmes as well 
as with budget support operations. In more detail, the Commission support to the 
fight  against  corruption  through  country-level  external  aid  may  entail  the 
following: 

- Support to the reform of public administration and to the management of public 
finances (in particular in the case of Budget Support to the partner country); 

- Support to the improvement of the business environment and customs reform; 

- Support to the fight against economic/financial crime (capacity-building for law 
enforcement  and  judicial  authorities,  as  well  as  specialised  bodies  such  as  Anti-
corruption  Commissions)  and  to  Justice  and  Security  reforms  (including  police 
reform); 

-  Support  to  civil  society  and  the  media  as  watchdogs,  as  well  as  Supreme  Audit 
Institutions and Parliaments in exercising their oversight and control functions. 

Furthermore, the Commission developed specific toolkits and services for the EU 
staff in headquarters such as:  

-  The  EC  toolkit  on  'Supporting  anti-corruption  reform  in  partner  countries' 
(2011) introducing main concepts and practical tools on how to address, assess and 
monitor anti-corruption initiatives in development and cooperation programmes;  

- the EU funded the Anti-Corruption Helpdesk (since 2013), a knowledge service 
run  by  Transparency  International  that  offers  on-demand,  fast  turnaround 
research  on  corruption 
the  EU  development  practitioners  and  other 
stakeholders;  

to 

-  a  training  scheduled  by  end  of  2015  on  how  to  approach  programming  in  the 
governance  sector  will be  organized  for  officers  in  delegation,  and  will include  a 
specific module on anti-corruption. 

183. 

(SR, Part V, § 57  - 2013/PAR/0434) The Parliament requests that the Commission 
propose a road map to the Council for the scaling-up of climate finance towards the 
Copenhagen Accord 2020 target, including a definition of private finance. 

84 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  takes  this  request  for  a  Roadmap  up  in  working  groups  with 
Member  States  regularly.  Recently  the  topic  was  discussed  on  25  February  2015 
and  28  April  2015  in  the  ECC  working  group.  For  the  latter  meeting  the 
Commission  prepared  a  specific  paper  for  the  discussion  on  scaling  up  climate 
finance  pre-2020  and  on  a  respective  roadmap.  This  discussion  has  shown  that 
there  is  little  support  among  MS  to  launch  such  a  roadmap.  The  Commission 
proposes to close the action. 

184. 

(SR, Part V, § 58  - 2013/PAR/0435) The Parliament requests that the Commission 
make  an  independent  evaluation  of  the  Global  Climate  Change  Alliance,  including 
an examination of why most Member States did not choose to co-finance it. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission received the final evaluation report of the Global Climate Change 
Alliance in  April  2015. The  report  is  available on  the  Capacity4Dev  (CAP4DEV) 
website:  http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/gcca-community/document/gcca-global-
evaluation-report. 

185. 

(SR, Part  V, § 59  -  2013/PAR/0436)  The Parliament asks the Commission  and the 
EEAS  to  report  on  the  extent  to  which  the  target  of  spending  20  %  of  the  Union 
budget and the EDF over 2014 to 2020 on climate related action is implemented in 
development aid, specifying what has been committed and disbursed. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission has put in place the necessary elements to ensure that the target 
of  spending  20  %  of  the  EU  budget  and  the  EDF  on  climate  related  actions  is 
achieved by 2020. A basic system is already in place for reporting on commitments 
against  the  20%  target-based  on  the  Rio  Marker  system.  At  present,  the 
Commission tracks climate-related actions in all the instruments managed by DG 
DEVCO  and  DG  NEAR,  including  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument 
(DCI),  the  European  Development  Fund  (EDF),  the  European  Neighbourhood 
Instrument (ENI)  and  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  (IPA).  The  vast  majority 
of the climate relevant development assistance provided by the EU through the EU 
budget and the EDF is channelled through these instruments. Work is ongoing to 
extend this tracking to other relevant flows and instruments from other DGs and 
the EEAS as part of the efforts to improve the overall reporting to the OECD DAC 
CRS database. The 2014 Annual Report "The EU Budget" for the first contained 
a  section  that  provides  figures  on  climate  relevant  spending  of  DCI,  ENPI  and 
EDF  for  the  2007-2013  period.  Up-dates  have  been  provided  with  the  report  for 
2015  and  2016.  Gradual  improvement  will  take  place  over  the  coming  years, 
including  steps  to  complement  the  reporting  on  commitments  with  disbursement 
data. 

186. 

(SR,  Part  V,  §  60  -  2013/PAR/0437)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  and 
Member States, in the framework of Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation),  to  agree 
common  standards  for  monitoring,  reporting  and  verification,  in  particular  with 
respect to the definition of ‘new and additional’, the application of the Rio Markers 
and reporting on the disbursement of climate finance. 

85 

 
Commission's response: 

In  order  to  improve  the  transparency  and  accountability  of  the  EU’s  climate 
finance, the European Commission developed in consultation with Member States 
guidelines in the framework of the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR) in 
advance  of  the  2014  reporting.  These  included  recommendations  on  format  and 
definitions  linked  to  e.g.  financing  source,  financial  instrument,  core-general/ 
climate  specific,  Rio  markers,  private  finance,  level  of  detail  etc.  The  guidelines 
were  sent  to  Member  States  on  11  August  2014  and  implemented  in  the  2014 
reporting cycle. 

187. 

(SR,  Part  V,  §  61  -  2013/PAR/0438)  The  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  and 
Member States to intensify their cooperation to implement the EU Code of Conduct 
on  Division  of  Labour  in  the  field  of  climate  finance,  notably  with  respect  to  the 
exchange  of  information  on  allocations  by  countries,  joint  programming  and 
preventing and combatting corruption in climate finance. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has proposed that the Expert Group on Means of Implementation 
(EGI)under WPIEI Climate should have, as part of its agenda, discussions on EU 
coordination  of  climate  and  development  support.  However,  this  is  seen  a  laying 
outside  the  mandate  of  the  group.  The  Commission  will  therefore  relaunch  the 
technical  expert  sub-group  on  climate  change  and  development  as  a  forum  for 
exchange  of  information  and  coordination  of  climate  relevant  development 
support. The technical expert group is scheduled to have its first meeting in 2015 
before COP 21 in Paris. 

86 

 
SR 18/2013 The reliability of the results of the Member States' checks of the agricultural 
expenditure 

188. 

(SR,  Part  VI,  §  65  -  2013/PAR/0439)  The  Parliament  reiterates  that  Parliament 
asked, in particular, that permanent pasture should be properly recorded in the land 
parcel  identification  system  (LPIS)  and  that  it  should  be  informed  by  the 
Commission on a six months basis on progress made. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission believes what whilst there are some problems with "pocket areas" 
of permanent pasture, these are being addressed via appropriate action both at the 
level  of  DG  AGRI  (via  financial  corrections  and  monitoring)  and  the  Member 
States concerned. 

The  Integrated  Administration  and  Control  System  (IACS)  in  general  and  the 
LPIS  in  particular  are  subject  to  a  continuous  rolling  out  of  audits  in  order  to 
detect deficiencies. An ineffective LPIS is taken very seriously by the Commission 
and  Member  States  are  required  to  implement  urgent  changes  which  are  closely 
monitored by the Commission via follow‑up audits.  

A  broader  interpretation  of  the  definition  for  'permanent  pasture'  by  several 
Member  States  triggered  some  systemic  ineligibility  problems  by  counting  non-
herbaceous  pastures  as  eligible  for  CAP  support.  This  problem  was  identified  by 
DG AGRI in its first audits in 2006/2007 and Member States were then requested 
to  take  remedial  action  in  order  to  regularise  the  situation  with  regard  to  the 
correct recording in the LPIS. Furthermore, guidance was provided to the Member 
States  on  how  to  find  a  workable  solution  to  record  those  areas  in  the  LPIS  for 
which  a  clean  delineation  of  what  is  eligible  land  is  not  always  straightforward. 
Follow-up financial corrections have been applied for the years in which this led to 
irregular  payments.  Member  States/regions  mainly  concerned  were  Austria, 
Sweden,  Scotland,  Northern  Ireland,  Portugal,  Spain,  Italy,  Greece.  For  most  of 
these  MS/regions,  the  situation  has  been  remedied  (though  in  Austria  and 
Northern Ireland it has to be confirmed in audit missions). Problems persisted for 
Portugal  but  have  been  addressed  via  their  now  implemented  action  plan.  For 
Spain, the remedial actions instigated have already improved the situation though 
not yet to a fully satisfactory standard and this is being pursued by DG AGRI. The 
same  applies  to  Greece  which  has  implemented  a  plan  which  was  found  to  be 
unsatisfactory and is now being tackled by further remedial action by Greece. For 
France, the issue is linked to certain regions and is to be addressed in the action 
plan. 

In  all  these  cases  the  risk  for  the  fund  has  been  and  will  continue  to  be  via  the 
conformity clearance procedure and resulting net financial corrections.  

Within  the  framework  of  the  CAP  reform,  the  definition  of  permanent 
pasture/grassland  has  been  broadened  to  allow  for  the  presence  of  other  species 
than grasses and herbaceous forage that can be grazed.  

In the same time, it must be considered that the updating of the LPIS to correctly 
take into account the pasture areas is a laborious exercise which takes time.  

The Commission reports extensively in its Annual Activity Report on the progress, 
and considers there is no need for additional reporting. 

87 

 
189. 

(SR, Part VI, § 66 - 2013/PAR/0440) The Parliament asks the Commission (and the 
Member States) to take immediate remedial action when administrative and control 
systems, and/or IACS databases, are found to be deficient or out of date. 

Commission's response: 

When  Commission  services  identify  deficiencies  in  the  quality  of  the  on-the-spot 
checks,  these  weaknesses  are  systematically  followed  up  through  conformity 
clearance  procedures  which  ensure  that  the  risk  to  the  EU  budget  is  adequately 
covered. Whenever  necessary  and appropriate, Member States  are required to set 
up  action  plans  to  remedy  the  deficiencies  and  ensure  that  they  set  up  and 
maintain up-dated and effective management and control systems. 

Guidance  provided  to  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  on-the-spot  checks  have 
also been adapted at the end of 2014 to accommodate for the new features of the 
direct payments for 2014-2020. 

Persistent  weaknesses  established  during  DG  AGRI's  audits  led  to  action  plans 
being  initiated  in  seven  Member  States  (UK  (England),  Spain,  Greece,  Bulgaria, 
Romania,  Portugal  and  France).  Most  of  these  action  plans  have  been  finalised 
and were generally successful. For those cases where the situation is not handled 
satisfactory or for new cases, further action plans have been required by DG AGRI 
and established by the Member States concerned.  

For France, Spain and England, remedial action plan established by the national 
authorities  continue  to  be  monitored  by  DG  AGRI.  For  Portugal  the  action  plan 
has  been  implemented.  For  Greece,  although  the  situation  had  significantly 
improved, the action plan was found not to have been fully implemented according 
to  the  set  milestones  and  deadlines  which  led  the  Commission  to  adopt  an 
Implementing  decision  to  reduce  the  claim  year  2014  monthly  payments  for 
expenditure concerned by the deficiencies. For France, more specific information 
on the implementation of the action plan is included in the following table. 

In all cases, for the years prior to the finalisation of the plan, the risk for the Fund 
has  been  covered  via  the  application  of  net  financial  corrections  and  net 
recoveries. In some cases the financial correction are accompanied by retro-active 
recovery from farmers and crediting of these amounts by the Paying Agency to the 
EU  budget.  Moreover,  actions  in  terms  of  reductions  or  suspension  of  payments 
are  also  possible  in  cases  where  the  remedial  actions  are  not  implemented 
correctly. 

190. 

(SR, Part VI, § 67 - 2013/PAR/0441) The Parliament urges the Commission (and the 
Member  States)  to  ensure  that  payments  are  based  on  inspection  results  and  that 
those inspections are of the necessary quality to determine eligible areas in a reliable 
and consistent manner. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission shares the view of the Parliament that the risk of ineligible land 
being  not  detected  prior  to  the  payments  shall  be  kept  under  control.  is  the  main 
point of concerns.  

The weaknesses found in the quality of the Land Parcel Identification System and 
of  the  on-the-spot  checks  are  followed  up  through  conformity  clearance 
procedures  and  net  financial  corrections,  which  ensure  that  the  risk  to  the  EU 
budget is adequately covered. They also trigger action plans by the Member States 
that the Commission monitors carefully. Failure to remedy in due time may lead to 

88 

 
suspension  or  reduction  of  the  payments  to  the  Member  States.  The  AAR  of  DG 
AGRI contains detailed information on all the actions. 

191. 

(SR,  Part  VI,  §  68  -  2013/PAR/0442)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
ensure that the design and quality of the work performed by the paying agencies and 
the certification bodies provide a reliable basis for the assessment of the legality and 
regularity  of  underlying  transactions;  maintains  that  in  order  to  achieve  this,  the 
Commission  should  work  towards  the  goal  of  a  single  audit  strategy  for  the  CAP 
control system. 

Commission's response: 

As from financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 9 of the Council Regulation No 
1306/2012  the  certification  bodies  will  provide  their  own  opinion  on  the  legality 
and regularity of underlying transactions. The new approach for the certification 
bodies is outlined in specific guidelines. If the underlying work is correctly carried 
out, the opinion of the Certification Bodies on legality and regularity will reinforce 
the overall assurance that can be obtained by DG AGRI on the effectiveness and 
reliability of Paying Agencies' control systems, including the error rates measuring 
the  level  of  undue  payments  in  the  population.  This  will  build  upon  the  road 
towards a single audit strategy.  

DG  AGRI  has  provided  detailed  guidelines  for  certification  bodies,  as  well  as 
guidelines  for  the  assurance  work  to  be  carried  out  by  the  directors  of  paying 
agencies.  

Certification  bodies  have  already  started  their  new  task  of  checking  the  legality 
and regularity of expenditure. In 2015, the certification bodies were invited to join 
DG  AGRI  auditors  in  their  audit  missions  for  training  purposes  so  that  they  can 
witness first-hand the standards that the Commission applies during its inspection 
procedures. DG AGRI has also included in its audit strategy the future work of the 
certification bodies. Thus, in 2015 and future years, DG AGRI will also audit the 
work of the Certification Bodies to ascertain the extent to which their work can be 
relied upon. 

192. 

(SR, Part VI, § 69 - 2013/PAR/0443) The Parliament calls for this new approach to 
extend  to  all  CAP  expenditure  in  DG  AGRI's  Annual  Activity  Reports  in  the  new 
funding period. 

Commission's response: 

In 2012 DG AGRI adjusted its method to estimate a more comprehensive residual 
error  rate  (RER)  by  taking  into  account  all  available  information  (its  own  audit 
reports,  those  of  the  ECA  and  certification  bodies).  This  assessment  was  carried 
out  in  respect  of  decoupled  direct  aids  in  the  AAR  of  2012  and  extended,  after 
further fine-tuning in the 2013 AAR, to all CAP expenditure. 

193. 

(SR, Part VI, § 72 - 2013/PAR/0444) The Parliament calls on the Commission (and 
Member States) to focus on the cost-efficiency of controls as an area of importance, 
specifically by further developing the use of risk-based controls. 

Commission's response: 

Section  2.1.2  in  DG  AGRI  AAR  2014  outlines  the  indicators  used  to  monitor  the 
efficiency of the control systems, including an overall assessment of the costs and 
benefits  of  controls  (in  the  wider  sense  of  the  definition  of  control  as  set  out  in 
Article 2(R) of the Financial Regulation93). 

89 

 
The costs at the level of the Member States related to control are estimated to be 
around 7.0% of the EU-funding. DG AGRI's information on Member State costs 
relates  to  the  broad  definition  of  "control"  and  encompasses  the  cost  of 
management  and  control  of  the  CAP  funds.  The  total  cost  benefit  ratio  for  the 
Member States' efficiency when detecting and correcting undue amounts prior to 
payments based on the information reported by Member States is 7.5 : 1. 

When  adding  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  cost  of  control,  the  total 
estimated cost for the management and control corresponds to 7.09% of the total 
expenditure. 

The  quantifiable  benefits  mainly  relate  to  the  corrections  implemented  by  DG 
AGRI's audit work. Overall, the controls carried out by DG AGRI in relation with 
the management of the funds compared to the net financial corrections shows that 
the quantifiable benefits exceeded the costs in a proportion of 13 : 1, confirming 
the cost efficiency of these controls. 

Pursuant to Art 32(5) of the Financial Regulation (R. 966/2012), the Commission 
shall continue to identify the weaknesses in the control systems, analyse the costs 
and benefits of possible corrective measures and shall take or propose appropriate 
action,  such  as  simplification  of  the  applicable  provisions,  improvement  of  the 
control  systems  and  re-design  of  the  programme  or  delivery  systems.  Given  the 
limited available resources, DG AGRI will continue to carry out risk-based audits 
and thus focus on the area most prone to risks. 

194. 

(SR,  Part  VI,  §  73  -  2013/PAR/0445)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
ensure  in  the  area  of  rural  development  that  uniform  standards  and  procedures  are 
being equally applied and observed. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  systematically  asked  those  Paying  Agencies  concerned  by 
reservations  to  put  in  place  action  plans  to  remedy  the  shortcomings  behind  the 
reservations.  In  the  area  of  rural  development,  4  seminars  have  been  already 
organised  on  the  identification  of  cause  roots  of  errors.  The  seminars  are 
organised directly after a process of submission of action plans by Member States, 
with  the  main  goal  of  taking  stock  of  the  overall  situation,  informing  about  new 
findings from  audits, verifying and validating the  achieved results  and proposing  
reflection and good practices on certain topics.  

Moreover, the new CAP legal framework gives more powers to the Commission to 
reduce or suspend payments  in the  area  of  agriculture when measures to  correct 
deficiencies  are  not  undertaken  by  the  national  authorities  in  a  satisfactory  or 
timely manner. For EAFRD, the interruption procedure is another new preventive 
instrument. In 2014, interruptions and suspension of EAFRD payments concerned 
6  out  of  92  RD  programmes  (for  details  see  section  2.1.1.7.2  in  DG  AGRI  AAR 
2014). 

In  addition,  the  Commission  discusses  measures  to  improve  the  quality  of 
administration  and  control  systems  with  the  Member  States  in  meetings  with  the 
learning  network,  in  DG  AGRI's  simplification  working  groups,  the  Farm 
Advisory  System  (FAS),  annual  screening  of  LPIS  quality  and  also  in  the 
conferences with the Directors of the PAs. 

Guidelines  on  On-the-spot  checks  have  been  presented  to  Member  States 
(DSCG/2014/33 FINAL) in the joint sessions of the Funds Agricultural Committee 
and Rural Development Committee. Furthermore, specific guidelines for controls 

90 

 
and  penalties  under  rural  development  measures  is  currently  being  discussed  in 
the  RDC,  including  comprehensive  sections  on  On-the-spot  checks  for  both  area 
and animal related measures, as well as for investment measures. 

91 

 
SR 1/2014 Effectiveness of EU-supported public urban transport projects 

195. 

(SR, Part VII, § 78 - 2013/PAR/0446) The Parliament calls on the Commission and 
authorities  in  Member  States,  taking  note  of  the  negative  impact  of  the  financial 
crisis  on  the  usage  of  transport  systems,  to  pay  more  attention  to  the  objectives, 
targets and indicators, in particular those in the project application forms, in order to 
identify potential risks and guard against any optimism bias in future projects and to 
avoid the kind of over-runs in time and cost mentioned in the special report. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the request and is taking the requested action.  

The Commission underlines that the appraisal and adoption procedure for major 
projects  for  the  2014–20  programming  period  will  allow  for  an  early,  upstream 
review of the projects by experts specialising in project management, CBA analysis 
and  technical/  engineering  issues.  The  Commission  is  preparing  delegated  and 
implementing  acts  that  will  define  various  quality  elements  that  need  to  be 
respected by all major projects. In addition, CBA guidance was issued in 2014 that 
includes  practical  recommendations  for  specific  sectors  and  case  studies  to  allow 
the beneficiaries to orientate their projects towards the best EU added value.  

All  the  projects  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Commission  have  to  go  through  a 
quality review, which will be carried out on the basis of a set of criteria, either by 
the  Commission  or  by  independent  experts  (Jaspers  paid  from  the  technical 
assistance  of  the  Commission  or  other  entities  nominated  by  Member  States  and 
agreed by the Commission). 

The new cohesion policy framework is geared towards result orientation, and this 
also has an impact on the way major projects are appraised by the Commission. In 
the  application  form  (which  will  be  issued  in  the  form  of  a  Commission 
implementing  act),  there  will  be  a  separate  section  where  the  projects  need  to 
present expected contributions to results and output indicators in the priority axis.  

The  Commission  will  propose,  in  the  delegated  act  for  quality  review,  conditions 
that  Member  States  have  to  fulfil  and  confirm  in  the  quality  review  report.  This 
also includes feasibility and reliability of the demand analysis, justifying the need 
for the project and the overall capacity of the project facilities.  

In  line  with  the  regulatory  framework  for  the  new  programming  period,  all 
projects will include, where relevant, common output indicators. Result indicators 
will be agreed during the negotiation process of the programmes and will be set at 
the priority axis level, and then subsequently monitored during the implementation 
period. However, the specific modalities of the evaluation and monitoring system, 
and in particular the contracting arrangements between the managing authorities 
and  the  operators,  will  be  among  the  competences  of  the  managing  authority,  as 
stated in  Article  125(3)(c)  of  Regulation  (EU) No  1303/2013.  Where appropriate, 
the  Commission  will  recommend  that  major  projects  have  a  minimum  set  of 
indicators and performance-based remuneration for the operator.  

Where  relevant  to  the  project  objectives,  the  Commission  will  recommend  that 
project promoters carry out user satisfaction surveys.  

Through  the  quality  review  of  the  projects  the  Commission  will  ensure  that 
projects subject to its approval will clearly present their contribution to the result 
indicators for monitoring progress.  

92 

 
The utilisation rate is not part of the common indicators requested to be monitored 
by Member States. However, the Commission will insist during the negotiations on 
the  programmes  on  the  inclusion,  where  relevant,  of  ‘utilisation  rate  of  public 
transport’  in  the  operational  programmes  dealing  with  public  transport  and 
consequently in their monitoring system done by Member States.  

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  Court  that  monitoring  of  the  contribution  of 
projects  is  essential  for  verifying  the  correct  implementation  of  the  programme. 
The  managing  authorities  need  to  undertake  evaluation  (in  line  with  evaluation 
plans) of the impact of the EU-funded projects on the achievement of targets of the 
priority  axis,  but  not  in  the  grant  agreement.  Subsequently,  the  results  achieved 
will be included and assessed in the annual and final implementation reports due 
to  be  submitted  by  Member  States  for  each  operational  programme,  when  these 
elements are included as result indicators for the operational programme.  

The Commission will ensure through the  quality review of  the  proposals  that the 
main  alternatives  have  been  analysed  and  the  best  option  was  selected  for  the 
implementation, including justification of the option chosen.  

It will also ensure that the demand analysis (or business plan in case of productive 
investment),  was  based  on  reliable  estimates  and  in  line  with  the  main 
demographic  trends  and  developments  in  the  respective  sector  to  justify  the  need 
for the project and the overall capacity of the project facilities.  

All  major  projects  will  have  to  demonstrate  their  contribution  to  objectives  set  at 
programme  level  to  promote  sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  as  set  out  in 
Article  5(4)(e)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1301/2013  (the  ERDF  regulation)  and 
Article 4(a)(v) of Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 (the Cohesion Fund regulation).  

The  Commission  agrees  that  these  aspects  should  be  addressed  by  the  managing 
authorities and will promote this practice. 

(SR,  Part  VII,  §  79  -  2013/PAR/0447)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
perform more thorough cost-benefit analyses of indicative budgets of urban transport 
projects  and  to  share  best  practices  with  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  encourage 
such exchanges among them, thus supporting authorities in successfully developing 
projects that are not subject to the Commission's approval. 

Commission's response: 

See reply to 2013/PAR/0446 

(SR, Part VII, § 80  - 2013/PAR/0448) The Parliament insists that the Commission 
encourages  the  use  of  Jaspers  (Joint  Assistance  to  Support  Projects  in  European 
Regions) by Member States and that it fully exploits its potential for assisting in the 
development  and  assessment  of  the  quality  of  urban  transport  projects  financed  by 
ESI funds. 

Commission's response: 

The use of JASPERS in the preparation of major projects and in the assessment of 
the  applications  for  financing  is  substantially  developed  under  the  2014-2020 
programming period. As part of the new decision procedure under Article 102(1) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  Member  States  will  use  JASPERS  as  the 
“independent expert” to appraise major projects before the applications are sent to 
the Commission. Although Member States may use other independent experts for 
this  purpose,  the  Commission  always  recommended  Member  States  to  call  for 
JASPERS, considering its expertise and experience, and also taking into account 

93 

196. 

197. 

 
the  requirements  applicable  to  independent  experts  set  out  in  Article  22  of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 480/2014. 

See also reply to 2013/PAR/0446. 

198. 

(SR,  Part  VII,  §  83  -  2013/PAR/0449)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
quickly  adopt  the  relevant  implementing  and  delegated  acts  in  order  to  prevent 
potential delays, recognising that transport projects usually require considerable time 
for elaboration and implementation. 

Commission's response: 

The  legislative  package  relating  to  major  projects  2014-2020  has  been  fully 
adopted: 

-  The  Delegated  regulation  No  480/2014  on  provisions  supplementing  Part  Two, 
Three and Four of CPR was adopted on 3 March 2014. 

- The Implementing regulation No 1011/2014 on the format for the notification of 
major projects was adopted on 22 September 2014. 

-  The  implementing  regulation  No  2015/207  on  the  application  form  for  major 
projects and on the methodology for carrying out the cost-benefit was adopted on 
20 January 2015. 

See also reply to 2013/PAR/0446. 

199. 

(SR, Part  VII, § 84  - 2013/PAR/0450)  The Parliament insists  that the elements  set 
out  in  the  Annex  to  the  abovementioned  Commission  communication  of  17 
December 2013 be implemented, including: 

(a)  comprehensive  status  analysis  and  baseline  through  an  “urban  mobility 
performance audit”, against which future performance can be measured; 

(b) the identification of “hotspots” within the urban areas where performance of the 
present transport system is particularly poor; 

(c) suitable performance indicators which can then be properly monitored; 

(d) specific performance objectives which  are realistically ambitious  with  regard to 
the objectives of a SUMP; 

(e) measurable targets, based on a realistic assessment of the baseline and available 
resources, to reflect the specific SUMP objectives. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the request. The Commission will: 

- Improve the dissemination and uptake of urban logistics best practice (2015); 

-  Prepare,  with  experts,  guidance  documents  that  provide  practical  assistance  on 
how  to  improve  urban  logistics  performance,  e.g.  by  developing  delivery  and 
servicing plans, city logistics in access regulation schemes etc. (2015-2016); 

- Facilitate procurement of clean vehicles used for urban logistics by reviewing the 
scope of the Clean Vehicle Portal (2015-2016). 

The proposed approach is set out in detail in the accompanying Commission Staff 
logistics”( 
to 
Working  Document 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/doc/ump/swd(2013)524-
communication.pdf) 

action 

urban 

call 

“A 

on 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Member States are invited to use Cohesion policy support for the development 
and implementation of sustainable urban mobility plans as outlined in Annex I of 
COM (2013) 913. 

(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/doc/ump/com(2013)913_en.pdf) 

200. 

(SR, Part VII, § 85  - 2013/PAR/0451) The Parliament insists that the Commission 
includes  in  the  implementing  and  delegated  acts  relating  to  these  kinds  of  projects 
(urban transport projects listed in Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013) more appropriate 
indicators  taking  into  consideration  the  indicators  recommended  by  the  Court  of 
Auditors. 

Commission's response: 

For the  2014-2020 programming period  the  Commission requires  Member States 
to include specific information on the utilisation rate of the projects co-financed. 
Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/207 (application 
for financing of major projects) requires Member States to explain under Section 
B.4.4  "what  measures  have  been  planned  /  taken  by  the  beneficiary  to  ensure 
optimal  utilisation  of  the  infrastructure  in  the  operation  phase".  Also,  detailed 
questions  were  added  on  how  the  Member  States  have  carried  out  the  demand 
analysis (Section D.1), including the methodology for projections, the assumptions 
and  baselines,  network  effects,  etc.  Moreover,  Annex  III  to  the  same  Regulation 
("methodology for carrying out the cost-benefit analysis") includes a Table on risk 
assessment  per  sector  (Section  2.4)  that  Member  States  are  required  to  use.  In 
particular concerning projects in the transport sector, Member States should take 
account of the risk that "traffic forecasts [may be] different than predicted". 

Through  the  quality  review  of  the  projects  the  Commission  will  ensure  that 
projects subject to its approval will clearly present their contribution to the result 
indicators for monitoring progress. 

The utilisation rate is not part of the common indicators requested to be monitored 
by Member States. However, the Commission will insist during the negotiations on 
the  programmes  on  the  inclusion,  where  relevant,  of  ‘utilisation  rate  of  public 
transport’  in  the  operational  programmes  dealing  with  public  transport  and 
consequently in their monitoring system done by Member States. 

The Commission agrees with the Court that monitoring of contribution of projects 
is  essential  for  verifying  the  correct  implementation  of  the  programme.  The 
managing authorities need to undertake evaluation (in line with evaluation plans) 
of  the  impact  of  the  EU-funded  projects  on  the  achievement  of  targets  of  the 
priority  axis,  but  not  in  the  grant  agreement.  Subsequently,  the  results  achieved 
will be included and assessed in the annual and final implementation reports due 
to  be  submitted  by  Member  States  for  each  operational  programme,  when  these 
elements are included as result indicators for the operational programme. 

95 

 
SR 2/2014 Are Preferential Trade Arrangements appropriately managed? 

201. 

(SR,  Part  VIII,  §  90  -  2013/PAR/0452)  The  Parliament  insists  that  before  signing 
any new agreement, the underlying SIA study should be finalised and made public. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has already taken action. All SIA related inception, interim and 
final  reports  are  made  public,  both  in  their  draft  and  final  forms.  In  fact, 
transparency  is  key  in  the  conduct  of  an  SIA  and  constitutes  one  of  the  main 
pillars on which SIAs rest. 

202. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 92 - 2013/PAR/0453) The Parliament would like to be informed of 
measures  taken  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  recommendations  and 
observations by Parliament and the Court of Auditors by October 2015. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission would like to reaffirm its commitment to adequately address the 
Court’s  recommendations  and  that  doing  better  and  more  will  contribute  to 
successfully achieve the ambitious trade agenda. 

203. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 93(a) - 2013/PAR/0454) The Parliament is of the opinion that in 
order to improve the assessment of the economic effects of PTAs, the Commission 
should carry out an impact assessment (IA) and a SIA for each PTA, providing an in 
depth,  comprehensive  and  quantified  analysis  of  the  expected  economic  effects, 
including an accurate estimate of revenue foregone. 

Commission's response: 

Although  impact  assessments  (IAs)  and  sustainability  impact  assessments  (SIAs) 
are not carried out for each trade agreement, the Commission would like to point 
out that they are conducted for all significant trade agreements. 

204. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 93(b) - 2013/PAR/0455) The Parliament is of the opinion that in 
order to improve the assessment of the economic effects of PTAs, the Commission 
should  involve  Eurostat  routinely  in  the  quality  assessment  of  the  statistical  data 
sources  used  in  SIAs  and  ensure  the  timeliness  of  the  analysis  carried  out  for 
negotiators. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  already  taken  action.    Eurostat  is  routinely  invited  to  be  a 
member of the steering groups monitoring IAs and SIAs and since 2014 is actively 
participating  in  them.Furthermore,  The  Commission  has  taken  steps  to  intensify 
cooperation  on  the  quality  of  statistical  data  sources.  In  this  respect,  a 
memorandum  of  understanding  between  Eurostat  and  DG  Trade  in  the  area  of 
statistics was concluded in August 2014.  

To ensure the timeliness of the analysis, the commitment to launch SIAs no more 
than  6  months  after  the  adoption  of  the  negotiating  directives,  which  is  already 
applied in practice, will also be spelled out in the revised SIA Handbook. 

205. 

(SR,  Part  VIII,  § 93(c) - 2013/PAR/0456)  The Parliament is  of the opinion  that in 
order to improve the assessment of the economic effects of PTAs, the Commission 
should carry out interim and ex post evaluations on all PTAs in order to assess the 
extent to which PTAs with a significant impact meet their policy objectives and how 
their  performance  can  be  improved  in  key  sectors  and  including  an  estimate  of 
revenue foregone. 

96 

 
Commission's response: 

The Commission has already taken action. In line with its commitment to carry out 
ex post evaluations on a more systematic basis, over the last three years a number 
of  ex  post  evaluations  were  carried  out  or  are  still  ongoing.  All  evaluations 
planned for 2014 were launched and conducted in line with agreed methodologies, 
except  for  two  ex  post  evaluations    cancelled  due  to  the  political  circumstances. 
Work is underway to launch an interim evaluation of the EU-Korea FTA in 2015. 

206. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(a) - 2013/PAR/0457) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in order to improve the protection of the Union’s financial interests, to create Union 
risk  profiles  on  PTAs  so  that  Member  States  have  a  common  approach  to  risk 
analysis in order to reduce losses to the Union budget. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  created  a  total  of  10  EU-wide  risk  profiles  for  certain  sensitive 
products  at  importation.  The  risk  profiles  are  included  in  the  Common  Customs 
Risk Management System. The Commission will continue creating risk profiles on 
PTA’s to be implemented by EU Member States whenever a special risk related to 
origin is identified. 

207. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(b) - 2013/PAR/0458) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in  order  to  improve  the  protection  of  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  to  verify  that 
Member  States  improve  the  effectiveness  of  their  risk  management  systems  and 
control strategy to reduce losses to the Union budget. 

Commission's response: 

In the course of its inspections in recent years the Commission has placed a special 
focus  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Member  States'  risk  management  systems  and 
control  strategies.  It  has  produced  thematic  reports  on  its  inspections  of  customs 
control strategy(2009), local clearance(2011), Transit(2012), and Entry in the EU 
(2013)  and  has  presented  these  reports  to  the  Member  States  in  the  Advisory 
Committee on Own Resources, and in the Customs Policy Group. It will continue 
to  verify  that  Member  States  improve  the  effectiveness  of  their  risk  management 
systems and control strategies. 

208. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(c) - 2013/PAR/0459) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in  order  to  improve  the  protection  of  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  to  encourage 
Member States to adopt appropriate precautionary measures upon receipt of a mutual 
assistance (MA) communication. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  (OLAF)  will  continue  to  encourage  Member  States  to  take  all 
appropriate precautionary measures upon receipt of MA communications. This is 
done  by  including  in  the  MA  communications  a  specific  reference  to the  need to 
take precautionary measures, where appropriate. 

209. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(d) - 2013/PAR/0460) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in order to improve the protection of the Union’s financial interests, to evaluate and 
carry  out  monitoring  visits  on  a  risk  basis  to  countries  benefiting  from  preferential 
treatment in particular regarding the rules of origin and cumulation. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  taking  action.  An  assessment  will  be  included  in  the  formal 
scoping  exercises  preceding  new  negotiations  and  a  further  detailed  analysis  / 

97 

 
assessment in the corresponding Sustainable Impact Assessments (SIAs). For on-
going  negotiations  (not  yet  in  force),  when  still  possible,  an  evaluation  will  be 
included  in the SIAs or ex post evaluations. 

210. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(e) - 2013/PAR/0461) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in  order  to  improve  the  protection  of  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  to  oblige  the 
Member  States  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  information  they  provide  concerning 
administrative cooperation. 

Commission's response: 

While  under  the  current  legal  framework  there  is  no  obligation  for  the  Member 
States  to  provide  information  on  administrative  cooperation,  the  Member  States 
are providing that type of information on a voluntary basis and under Commission 
requests. In this line, the Commission asked Member States in May 2014 to provide 
details/statistics  for  the  year  2012  in  an  improved  new  format  which  allowed  a 
better sorting and evaluation of the data and will continue to do so. In addition, the 
Commission regularly – i.e. upon receipt of statistics from MS – evaluates the raw 
data in order to improve the quality of the information concerning administrative 
cooperation provided by the Member States. 

211. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(f) - 2013/PAR/0462) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in order to improve the protection of the Union’s financial interests, to improve the 
financial follow up of European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigations in order to 
prevent losses to the Union budget due to time barring. 

Commission's response: 

The recovery action following OLAF investigations in customs cases is the task of 
national authorities. The Commission systematically follows up all identified cases 
of Member States' financial liability resulting from delays in recovery procedures 
and  will  continue  to  do  so.  The  amount  of  duty  shown  in  the  financial 
recommendation by OLAF is the amount recommended for recovery.  The actual 
amount  that  can  be  recovered  can  only  be  definitively  determined  when  followed 
up. 

212. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(g) - 2013/PAR/0463) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in order to improve the protection of the Union’s financial interests, to reinforce the 
Union’s  position  in  reciprocal  PTAs  and  make  more  use  of  precautionary  and 
safeguard measures including them in all future trade agreements. 

Commission's response: 

Since 2001, the Commission has proposed that all EU preferential trade regimes, 
whether  autonomous  or  conventional,  include  the  possibility  of  temporary 
withdrawal  of  preferences  in  the  event  of  particular  problems  with  the 
management  of  the  preferences  and/or  other  significant  breaches  of  customs 
legislation  or  non  cooperation.  The  Commission  considers  that  these  safeguards 
have  proved  to  be  sufficient  and  will  continue  to  propose  their  inclusion  in  all 
future preferential trade arrangements.  

At  the  end  of  2013,  the  possibility  of  temporary  withdrawal  of  preferences  was 
already  included  in  four  autonomous  arrangements  (including  GSP)  covering 
almost 200 countries, and preferential agreements with more than 30 countries.  

Currently  the  Commission  is  negotiating  the  inclusion  of  provisions  for  the 
temporary with-drawal of preferences in PTAs with a number of partners, such as 

98 

 
Japan,  Vietnam  and  Morocco.  It  was  also  included  in  the  recently  concluded 
negotiations with Canada and Singapore.  

The Commission will continue to propose the inclusion of the MAE clause in all 
future trade agreements where no self certification is agreed. 

213. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(h) - 2013/PAR/0464) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in  order  to  improve  the  protection  of  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  to  provide  an 
overview of recoveries made over the period 2010 till 2014 without delay. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  follows  up  with  the  Member  States  the  recovery  of  amounts  of 
traditional own resources (TOR) which are found to be due arising from its  own 
inspections  or  those  found  to  be  due  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  resulting  from  its 
audits. The recovery of TOR for the period 2010 to 2014 arising from the findings 
of  the  Court  in  its  audit  of  Preferential  Trade  Arrangements  amounts  to 
€1,019,844.26 (This amount is the net amount following the deduction of 25% for 
collection charges). Of this amount €1,019,040.26 was recovered from the UK and 
€804.00  from  France.  An  amount  of  €968,653.48  in  interest  was  also  recovered 
from the UK. The follow-up of the ECA audit has not been completed yet, but no 
major  changes  to  the  figures  indicated  are  expected.  There  could  be  additional 
recoveries  made  directly  by  Member  States  resulting  from  their  own  controls  as 
they are ultimately responsible for the recovery of traditional own resources. 

214. 

(SR, Part VIII, § 94(i) - 2013/PAR/0465) The Parliament calls on the Commission, 
in  order  to  improve  the  protection  of  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  to  inform 
Parliament of the results of the Compact initiative in Bangladesh. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  been  regularly  debriefing  the  INTA  Committee  of  the 
European Parliament and will continue to do so in the future. In response to the 
Rana  Plaza  tragedy,  the  EU  –  together  with  the  Government  of  Bangladesh  and 
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) – took action through a launched the 
Sustainability  Compact  for  improving  labour,  health  and  safety  conditions  in  the 
Bangladeshi  garment  factories  to  promote  better  labour  rights  and  more 
responsible supply  chain management  in garment manufacturing in Bangladesh. 
The US also associated itself to the Compact soon after its launch.  

The Commission published two technical reports in July 2014 and April 2015, for 
reviewing progress and outlining steps that still need to be taken in the Compact's 
implementation in the first and second years since ne years on from its the launch 
of the Compact which reviews progress made and outline steps that still need to be 
taken  in  its  implementation.  They  will  be  used  as  a  basis  for  discussions  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Compact  in  a  follow-up  stocktaking  exercise  in  2014,  to 
which key stakeholders will be invited. 

99 

 
SR 3/2014 Lessons from the European Commission’s development of the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) 

215. 

(SR, Part IX, § 97 - 2013/PAR/0466) The Parliament recommends the integration of 
every  major  IT  project  in  the  IT-governance  procedure  and  to  include  not  only 
experts from the Commission's Directorate-General for Informatics but also experts 
from other Directorates-General as well as external experts, in order to benefit better 
from internal expert knowledge. 

Commission's response: 

The  newly  created  IT  Board  is  reviewing  all  major  IT  projects.  Chaired  by  the 
Secretariat-General,  the  members  are  representatives  of  Central  Services  and 
the 
major  operational  Directorates-General  at  Director's 
Commission cannot commit itself to the systematic use of external experts. 

level.  However, 

216. 

(SR,  Part  IX,  §  98  -  2013/PAR/0467)  The  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission should benefit from the Member States' expertise right from the start of 
every major project and to set up a panel of experts consisting of representatives of 
the  Member  States  in  charge  of  the  project;  considers  that  the  panel’s  mission  and 
competencies of its members should be clearly defined. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  cannot  commit  itself  to  the  systematic  use  of  Member  States' 
expertise for each major IT project but already uses the expertise on a case by case 
basis  where  appropriate.  In  the  specific  case  of  SIS  II  development,  a  SIS  II 
Committee  composed  of  Member  States  experts  was  created  in  January  2002  to 
provide  technical  expertise  to  the  Commission  and  a  SIS  II  Global  Programme 
Management Board was settled by the Commission gathering eight Member States 
experts  to  enhance  cooperation  and  provide  direct  Member  States  support  to  the 
central SIS II project. 

217. 

(SR,  Part  IX,  §  102  -  2013/PAR/0468)  The  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  should  establish  a  realistic  business  plan  and  timetable  for  future  IT 
projects,  based  on  clearly  defined  requirements  in  form  and  content  and  a  clear 
analysis of costs and time planning taking into account the risks and complexity of 
the project. 

Commission's response: 

Such detailed planning is already undertaken and a part of internal IT governance 
practice. 

218. 

(SR, Part IX, § 104 - 2013/PAR/0469) The Parliament requests the highest possible 
transparency in future IT projects in terms of a continuous information cycle vis-à-
vis  Parliament's  respective  competent  committee,  especially  when  it  comes  to  vital 
decisions triggering consecutive project's phases or unforeseen changes of costs, time 
planning or alternative solutions. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission cannot accept this additional reporting requirement. Moreover, it 
points out that the EP is already involved in underlying legislative acts as well as 
corresponding programs requiring the development of major IT systems. 

100 

 
SR 4/2014 Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success 

219. 

(SR,  Part  X,  §  114  -  2013/PAR/0470)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
propose to the Union legislator the necessary modifications to the current instruments 
(cross compliance and rural development). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has proposed for the CAP post 2014 that the Water Framework 
Directive (WFD) as well as the Sustainable Use of pesticides Directive (SUD) will 
be  part  of  cross-compliance  when  these  directives  will  have  been  implemented  in 
all  Member  States  and  the  obligations  directly  applicable  to  farmers  have  been 
identified. The European Parliament and the Council have agreed to this approach 
and  made  a  joint  statement  in  this  respect  at  the  occasion  of  the  adoption  of  the 
CAP reform.  

the 

2012, 

European 

In 
(https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/25d8b24a-c247-4275-9a56-9676a75a90f6) 
took note of the recommendations from the Strategic Coordination Group and the 
Commission. Water Directors recognised that the list of basic measures proposed 
should be considered for inclusion in cross-compliance if a decision to add WFD 
provisions  in  cross  compliance  is  reached  in  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council in the CAP discussions.  

Directors 

Water 

Pending  this  introduction  into  cross-compliance,  co-legislators  have  also  agreed 
that these two directives will be part of the compulsory scope of the Farm Advisory 
System so that all farmers concerned have access to the relevant advice. The main 
elements  of  EU  water  policy  could  therefore  be  included  into  the  CAP  in  due 
course.  

As  for  the  rural  development  policy,  the  necessary  tools  and  mechanisms  are 
provided for the period 2014-2020 through the new Rural Development Regulation 
(RDR)  –  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council – and through related legislation.  

Within  the  RDR  (i.e.  within  the  key  legislation  itself),  ‘improving  water 
management’  and  ‘increasing  efficiency  in  water  use  by  agriculture’  are  explicit 
elements  of  the  ‘priorities’  against  which  Member  States  /  regions  must 
programme spending within their RDPs.  

A  range  of  measures  is  available  to  help  fulfil  these  priorities  –  support  for 
training, use of advice, investments, multi-annual land management practices and 
experimental development (including within the European Innovation Partnership 
for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability).  

Finally, it should be borne  in mind that rural development policy must address a 
range of priorities and financial resources are limited. 

220. 

(SR,  Part  X,  §  116  -  2013/PAR/0471)  The  Parliament  expects  the  Commission  to 
propose  appropriate  mechanisms  that  can  effectively  exercise  a  strong  positive 
influence on the quality of Member States’ WFD programming documents and avoid 
departing from the timeframe set by the WFD. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  considers  that  this  request,  which  is  based  on  the  Court  of 
Auditors'  report,  has  been  partially  implemented  as  most  of  the  mentioned 
mechanisms are in place and are being used.  

101 

 
On the basis of the Water Blueprint adopted in 2012, the Commission will continue 
the well regarded WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) process that has 
produced  around  30  guidance  documents  detailing  how  the  WFD  should  be 
implemented.  The  mandate  of  the  CIS  working  groups  is  firmly  focussed  on 
improving the quality of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and improving 
the status of EU waters by delivering on the proposals listed in the Blueprint. The 
Commission has already provided updated guidance to the Member States on how 
to  report  for  the  2nd  RBMPs.    A  new  CIS  mandate  for  the  period  2016-2018 
should be agreed by December 2015. 

The  Commission  has  followed  up  on  significant  gaps  in  the  measures  needed  to 
implement  the  WFD  with  Member  States  bilaterally  with  the  aim  to  resolve  the 
issues  in  time  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  December  2015.  In  this  respect,  the 
Commission  has  addressed  new  recommendations  to  Member  States  in  the  4th 
WFD Implementation Report in March 2015.  The Commission has launched pilot 
investigations and in some cases opened infringement procedures. 

In 2016, Member States will report to the Commission their updated RBMPs. The 
Commission will assess them and, inter alia on that basis, will accomplish a review 
of the WFD and propose the necessary course of action by 2019 at the latest. 

221. 

(SR,  Part  X,  §  118  -  2013/PAR/0472)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
strengthen its knowledge of the link between water quality/quantity and agricultural 
practices by improving its existing monitoring systems and by ensuring that they are 
at the very least capable of measuring the evolution of the pressures placed on water 
by agricultural practices. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission considers that this request is implemented. 

For  the  new  programming  period  2014-2020,  a  new  system  for  monitoring  and 
evaluating the CAP as a whole against its objectives was introduced in Regulation 
1306/2013.  This  system  also  contains  information  on  quantity  of  water  used  and 
water  quality.  However,  linking  water  quality  and  quantity  with  agricultural 
practices  is  very  complex,  given  the  wide  variety  of  agricultural  practices  and 
agronomic  circumstances  across  the  EU.  Therefore,  the  costs  and  administrative 
burden  related  to  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  need  to  be  carefully 
balanced against the benefits related to improved management and policy making.  

For  multi-annual  programmes  such  as  the  Rural  Development  Programmes, 
certain results, such as impacts on water quality can only be properly assessed well 
into the programming period, and afterwards. Such effects can only be measured 
after sufficient time since implementation has passed. 

Lessons learnt from the 2007-2013 CMEF showed that it was very difficult to set 
accurate targets for impact indicators such as water quality due to the numerous 
external  factors  involved.  Guidance  documents  have  been  provided  to  Member 
States  to  support  them  in  the  measurement  of  these  impact  indicators  which  are 
expected in the ex-post evaluations. 

As  regards  the  result  indicators,  it  is  acknowledged  that  there  were  some 
difficulties  in  correctly  recording  data  for  result  indicator  regarding  ‘area  under 
successful land management’. 

Under the WFD, Member States have to identify significant pressures and report 
these in  the RBMPs and into the  WISE system. The Commission recognises  that 
the level at which information was being reported was not useful for analysis and 

102 

 
so, through the WFD CIS process, changes to be made to reporting requirements 
have been discussed, that allow for better tracking of pressures and the degree to 
which measures being implemented are having effect. 

103 

 
SR 6/2014 Cohesion policy funds support to renewable energy generation — has it 
achieved good results? 

222. 

(SR, Part  XII, § 135  - 2013/PAR/0473)  The Parliament invites the Commission to 
carry  out  an  in-depth  screening  of  the  legislation  and  to  correct  existing 
inconsistencies (between the Union regulatory framework of RES and the European 
Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. The reason for this is that 
the  Commission  has  not  noted  any  inconsistencies  between  the  EU  legal 
framework  on  the  promotion  of  renewable  energy  use  and  that  of  EU  Cohesion 
Policy.  EU  Cohesion  Policy  supports  the  objectives  of  the  Renewable  Energy 
Directive , in particular by providing funding for renewable energy investments in 
Member States, thus helping them to achieve the overall EU legally binding target 
for 2020 of 20% for renewable energy and the binding national renewable energy 
targets laid down in Part B of Annex I of the Renewable Energy Directive. Support 
for renewable energy is among the investment priorities under Thematic Objective 
4, Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors, laid down in 
the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  Cohesion  Fund  (CF) 
regulations . The ex-ante conditionality 4.3 of the Common Provisions Regulation 
,  applicable  for  ERDF  and  CF  investments  in  production  and  distribution  of 
energy  derived  from  renewable  sources  and  referring  to  relevant  parts  of  the 
Renewable Energy Directive, ensures that the necessary prerequisites for effective 
and  efficient  use  of  the  support  are  in  place.  The  regulatory  framework  also 
requires that output and result indicators and corresponding targets are included 
in  the  operational  programmes,  including  a  common  output  indicator  related  to 
renewable  energy  production  capacity,  permitting  the  monitoring  of  the  direct 
investment outputs. The programme monitoring committee shall meet at least once 
a  year  and  shall  review  implementation  of  the  programme  and  progress  made 
towards achieving its objectives. 

223. 

(SR, Part  XII, § 138  - 2013/PAR/0474)  The Parliament invites the Commission to 
carry  out  an  up-to-date  screening  of  regulatory  and  technical  barriers  at  Member 
State level in order to allow better access for both small and large scale RES projects 
to the electricity grid. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action is already being taken on regular basis through the regular 
monitoring  and  analysis  of  administrative  barriers  to  the  RES  development  at 
Member  State  level.  The  results  of  these  assessments  are  included  in  the 
Commission's  biennial  renewable  energy  progress  reports.  The  requirement  to 
improve  RES  electricity  access  to  the  grid  is  a  legal  requirement  under  the 
Renewable  Energy  Directive  and  the  Commission  is  exercising  its  legal  duty  in 
obliging  Member  States  to  transpose  and  implement  those  rules  adequately.  The 
2015  Renewable  energy  progress  report    under  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive 
provides  an  analysis  of  most  recent  progress  achieved  in  this  area,  and  it  also 
includes  the  results  of  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  regulatory  fitness  of  the 
Renewable  Energy  Directive.  Noting  the  slow  progress  at  Member  State  level  in 
removal  of  such  administrative  barriers,  the  Commission  intends  to  carry  out  a 
comprehensive study on the practical implementation of administrative procedures 
for  renewable  energy  projects 
the 
implementation  and  further  development  of  Projects  of  Common  Interest  (PCIs) 

in  Member  States 

.  Furthermore, 

104 

 
are of key importance to the EU. Completing the Internal Energy Market will also 
enable  us  to  integrate  renewables  in  a  more  cost-effective  way.  In  order  to  make 
the Internal Energy Market work seamlessly, the Commission, in cooperation with 
ENTSO-E  is  working  on  detailed  rules  (network  code  harmonisation)  for 
European  electricity  connections,  operations  and  markets  in  Europe.  Common 
rules  will  allow  creating  a  level  playing  field  across  Europe  and  will  enable 
network operators, generators (including renewables), suppliers and consumers to 
operate more effectively in the market. 

224. 

(SR, Part XII, § 141 - 2013/PAR/0475) The Parliament notes that the very detailed 
selection  criteria  of  RES  can  become  a  way  of  excluding  competitors  and  asks  the 
Commission  to  reinforce  guidance  in  that  matter  and  to  monitor  carefully  those 
cases. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  not  be  taking  the  requested  action.  The  reason  for  this  is 
that,  under  the  principle  of  shared  management  applying  to  Cohesion  Policy, 
Member  States’  managing  authorities, 
intermediate  bodies  and  certifying 
authorities  are  in  charge  of  managing  the  implementation  of  the  operational 
programmes. As for the specific projects, Member States themselves are in charge 
of  the  selection.    For  the  2014–20  period,  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation 
provides that selection procedures and criteria need to ensure the contribution of 
operations to the achievement of the specific objectives and results of the relevant 
priority of the operational programme. More generally, all applicable requirements 
of  public  procurement 
to  be  respected.  The 
legislation  obviously  need 
Commission’s 2013 guidance for the design of renewables support schemes should 
be  taken  into  consideration  by  Member  States.  The  Guidelines  on  State  aid  for 
environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 also  contribute to  increasing  the 
cost-effectiveness  of  Member  States’  support  schemes  for  renewable  energy.  The 
Commission services will continue to further support programme implementation, 
including support for capacity building in the Member States where needed. 

105 

 
SR 8/2014 Has the Commission effectively managed the integration of coupled support 
into the single payment scheme? 

225. 

(SR, Part XIV, § 162 - 2013/PAR/0476) The Parliament calls on the Commission to 
adequately supervise the calculation of payment entitlements of farmers by Member 
States, including respect for the ceilings available for allocating such entitlements. 

Commission's response: 

Within  the  reformed  CAP,  the  following  measures    have  been  put  in  place  to 
ensure the correct implementation of the rules by the Member States: 

• 
Notification  requirements  regarding  Member  States  decisions  on  the 
implementation of the reformed direct payments system have been strengthened in 
the Commission Delegated Regulation 639/2014 

• 
Among others, Member States have to notify to the European Commission, 
[via  the  ISAMM  system],  the  modalities  of  calculation  of  payment  entitlements 
(including, internal convergence); 

• 
Based  on  the  notifications,  the  European  Commission  has  bilaterally 
highlighted  to  Member  States  possible  risks  of  non-compliance  with  EU 
Regulations  and  has  also  provided  further  explanations  and  guidance  regarding 
legal  provisions  (in  some  cases  Member    States  have  corrected  the  notified 
modalities to ensure coherence with the legislation); 

The  European  Commission  has  also  provided  guidance  documents  and 
• 
interpretations  of  the  legal  provisions  which  are  made  available  to  all  member 
States  [via  CircaBc],  so  as  to  maintain  the  consistency  of  the  new  system  and  to 
minimize risk of any possible errors in the implementation of the reformed direct 
payments system; 

• 
In  addition,  at  the  request  of  certain  Member  States,  the  Commission 
services are visiting them or will be visiting them with a specific focus on the first 
allocation of payment entitlements. These visits are however not ex-ante audits but 
rather  monitoring  and  assistance  to  Member  States  on  how  rules  regarding 
payments entitlement are implemented in 2015.  

Besides,  since  2014  a  specific  unit  in  DG  AGRI  of  the  European 
• 
Commission  is  in  particular  dedicated  to  the  implementation,  support  and 
monitoring of direct payments; 

Financial ceilings are fixed for each Member State and specific ceilings have 
• 
been  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  for  each  measure;  monitoring  on 
whether the financial ceilings are respected is carried out by the unit responsible 
for financial management of the EAGF within DG AGRI. 

226. 

(SR, Part XIV, § 164 - 2013/PAR/0477) The Parliament calls on the Commission to 
improve  timely  supervision  and  to  pay  more  attention  to  risks  linked  with 
entitlements. 

Commission's response: 

See reply to Recommendation 2013/PAR/0476 

227. 

(SR,  Part  XIV,  §  168  -  2013/PAR/0478)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
reassure  Parliament  and  its  Committee  on  Budgetary  Control  that  the  appropriate 
measures  to  achieve  this  objective  (avoiding  unjustified  discrepancies  in  payment 
entitlement  calculations  in  the  different  Member  States  and  also  the  unequal 

106 

 
treatment of farmers, irrespective of any level of discretion the regulation may offer) 
are in place. 

Commission's response: 

The legislator in Regulation 1307/2013 provided significant discretion to Member 
States, including discretion regarding the allocation of payment entitlements with 
different modalities available for establishing the number of payment entitlements 
and  their  value.  Accordingly  out  of  18  Member  States  implementing  the  basic 
payment scheme, 10 opted for a partial convergence towards the flat rate in 2019 
and 7 of them decided to limit the extent of the reduction in the value of high-value 
entitlements due to internal convergence. The other (8) Member States decided to 
have  a  regional  or  national  flat  rate  value  of  payment  entitlements  either  from 
2015 or by 2019 (by 2020 for Sweden). 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  has  provided  assistance  to  Member  States  at 
bilateral level (including visits to Member States) and by way of interpretations and 
guidance  provided  to  all  Member  States  via  CircaBc  and  during  the  relevant 
committee or expert group meetings. 

The CAP is implemented according to the shared management principle and it is 
for Member States to implement the relevant rules. Nevertheless, the Commission 
closely  follows  the  implementation  of  the  reformed  direct  payments  system  and 
provides  assistance  to  Member  States  whenever  necessary.  In  particular,  at  the 
request of certain Member States, the Commission services are visiting them or will 
be  visiting  them  with  a  specific  focus  on  the  first  allocation  of  payment 
entitlements. These visits are however not ex-ante audits but rather monitoring and 
assistance  to  Member  States  on  how  rules  regarding  payments  entitlement  are 
implemented in 2015. This comes on top of the fact that, since 2014 a specific unit 
in  DG  AGRI  of  the  European  Commission  is  in  particular  dedicated  to  the 
implementation, support and monitoring of direct payments. 

107 

 
SR 9/2014 Is the EU investment and promotion support to the wine sector well managed 
and are its results on the competitiveness of EU wines demonstrated? 

228. 

(SR,  Part  XV,  §  179  -  2013/PAR/0479)  The  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  to 
consider whether there is a need for extra financial tool for the wine sector compared 
to other agricultural sectors. 

Commission's response: 

In  December  2013,  the Council  and  Parliament  have confirmed the  utility  of  the 
wine reform by retaining its guiding principles in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 
on the new common market organisation (CMO) for the period 2014–2020. They 
have  thus  demonstrated  their  willingness  to  allow  the  wine  reform  tools  time  to 
take full effect, while at the same time expanding the range of sub‑measures of the 
aid  programmes  (new 
to 
information actions targeted at the domestic market, extension of restructuring to 
replanting for plant-health reasons). 

innovation  measure,  opening  up  of  promotion 

Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 110 of the horizontal Regulation (EU) No 
1306/2013,  the  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  combined  impact  of  all  CAP 
instruments is measured and assessed in relation to the common objectives of the 
CAP.  This  includes  an  evaluation  of  the  coherence  of  the  CAP  instruments  by 
2018 (first results). In this context, the Commission will examine how to include an 
assessment of the added value of having an extra financial tool for the wine sector 
with  respect  to  measures  such  as  investments  which  are  financed  both  under  the 
wine  CMO  and  rural  development.  It  should  be  noted  that  information  on  the 
impact of a policy can only be obtained after a sufficiently long period of time has 
elapsed after its inception. 

108 

 
SR 10/2014 The effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture 

229. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  185  -  2013/PAR/0480)  The  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
improve programme design in order to strengthen measures supporting aquaculture. 

Commission's response: 

The  establishment  of  quantified  targets,  common  indicators  and  milestones  and 
procedures  for  monitoring  and  evaluation  will  improve  programme  design.  In 
particular, the new monitoring system under the EMFF (European Maritime and 
Fisheries  Fund)  will  be  composed  of  1)  a  database  at  Member  State  level 
(INFOSYS) in which information on each operation is stored; 2) a report sent to 
the  Commission  presenting  key  information  in  an  aggregated  form.  This 
information  should  be  cumulative  in  order  to  reflect  the  evolution  of  the 
implementation.  This  will  be  completed  with  the  adoption  of  the  Member  States' 
EMFF  operational  programme  although  the  Commission  will  have  to  monitor 
their actual implementation over the 2014-2020 programming period. 

230. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  185  -  2013/PAR/0481)  The  Parliament  calls  on  Commission  to 
ensure better implementation (measures supporting aquaculture). 

Commission's response: 

During  the  adoption  process  of  operational  programmes,  the  Commission  pays 
particular  attention  to  the  establishment  of  the  performance  framework  and  the 
setting of challenging but realistic milestones and targets for common output and 
result indicators. As regards the Union priority on the development of sustainable 
aquaculture, in line with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors, 
the Commission puts emphasis on supporting economically viable operations. This 
is  reflected  in  the  formal  observations  sent  by  the  Commission  to  the  Member 
States  during  the  bilateral  negotiations.  As  an  observer  in  the  meetings  of  the 
EMFF  Monitoring  Committees  in  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  will 
continue emphasising the  importance of  economic viability as a selection criteria 
for  aquaculture  operations.  This  will  be  completed  with  the  adoption  of  the 
Member  States'  EMFF  operational  programme  although  the  Commission  will 
have  to  monitor  their  actual  implementation  over  the  2014-2020  programming 
period. 

231. 

(SR, Part XVI, § 187 - 2013/PAR/0482) The Parliament urges the Commission to re-
shape  its  financial  management  and  to  change  its  approach  from  spending  all 
available sources into concentrating on whether the spending is in line with the rules, 
whether  it  delivers  value  for  money  and  whether  it  provides  effective  support  to 
achieving main objectives. 

Commission's response: 

Implementation  of  that  part  of  the  EMFF  (European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund) under shared management focuses on results. Several measures have been 
put  in  place  during  the  programming  exercise  (eg.  ex-ante  conditionalities, 
performance  framework  with  common  indicators  with  challenging  but  realistic 
targets)  to  ensure  better  performance  of  programme  implementation  in  the 
Member  States.  The  Commission  will  continuously  monitor  the  fulfilment  of  ex-
ante  conditionalities  and  the  achievement  of  milestones  and  targets  of  the 
indicators  through  the  annual  reporting  obligation  of  Member  States,  knowing 
that  (according  to  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation),  payments  may  be 
suspended if a Member State does not fulfill its reporting obligation. 

109 

 
232. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  188  -  2013/PAR/0483)  The  Parliament  stresses  that  the 
Commission  should  support  the  Member  States  in  doing  so  (address  the  poor 
selection  of  projects  instead  of  granting  funds  to  all  projects  and  ensure  that  the 
selection  procedure  is  subject  to  detailed  evaluation  rules  that  will  assess  the 
potential  of  the  projects  to  deliver  results  and  value  for  money)  and  that  it  should 
encourage  follow-up  monitoring  on  the  project  deliverables  and  should  establish 
more complex post-project evaluation that would be used as lessons learned. 

Commission's response: 

The EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) includes a number of  new 
elements  designed  to  help  focus  EMFF  funding  on  those  projects  which  best 
contribute  to  the  sustainable  development  of  aquaculture  and  provide  value  for 
money. These elements include:  

1)  reinforced  monitoring  system  with  annual  reporting  on  the  measures  being 
financed; 

2) a more complete annual implementation report; 

3) reinforced result‑orientation including the new performance framework, and  

4)  ex  ante  conditionalities  to  ensure  that  measures  to  be  financed  under 
aquaculture  are  coherent  with  the  multiannual  national  strategic  plan  on 
aquaculture. 

233. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  189  (a)  -  2013/PAR/0484)  The  Parliament  recommends  to  the 
Commission  to  (a)  develop  stronger  means  of  pressure  on  the  Member  States  to 
deliver reliable data, especially in the case when there are obvious discrepancies. 

Commission's response: 

In the EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund), the Member States have 
two  main  reporting  obligations  annually:  1)  data  provision  at  the  level  of 
operations  in  March  each  year  (the  so-called  Infosys),  and  2)  the  Annual 
Implementation Report (AIR) by the end of May each year. If the Member States 
do  not  comply  with  their  reporting  obligation  as  regards  the  AIR,  payments  of 
funds are to be suspended for the whole of the operational programme. As regards 
the Data Collection Framework, failures to provide full, reliable data in time and 
of  required  quality  is  included  into  the  list  of  "cases  of  non-compliance  with  the 
CFP rules by the Member States", and such cases may trigger interruption of the 
payment deadline, suspension of payments and in the end when no other measure 
proved to be effective, a financial correction by the Commission. Furthermore, the 
ongoing  revision  of  the  Data  Collection  Framework  will  ensure  the  collection  of 
even more relevant data for the monitoring of aquaculture development. 

234. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  189  (b)  -  2013/PAR/0485)  The  Parliament  recommends  to  the 
Commission  to  (b)  consider  penalising  Member  States  suspected  of  intentionally 
delivering incorrect data. 

Commission's response: 

Failure to provide full, reliable data in time and of required quality is included in 
the  list  of  "cases  of  non-compliance  with  the  CFP  rules  by  the  Member  States", 
which  may  trigger  interruption  of  the  payment  deadline,  suspension  of  payments 
and in the end, when no other measure has proven effective, financial correction 
by the Commission.  

110 

 
Moreover,  whether  the  non-fulfilment  of  the  EMFF  (European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries Fund) ex ante conditionality (EAC) on administrative capacity for data 
collection  would  give  rise  to  significant  prejudice,  the  Commission  may  suspend 
interim  payments  at  the  time  of  adoption  of  the  operational  programme.  The 
suspension would target only the part of the interim payments which is related to 
the  Union  priority/(ies)  affected  by  the  non-fulfilled  EAC  for  which  there  is 
significant prejudice. The Commission also has the possibility to suspend interim 
payments if by the end of 2016 an action plan for fulfilling an EAC agreed in the 
operational  programme  has  not  been  carried  out  and  that  EAC  remains 
unfulfilled.  

This will be completed with the adoption of the Member States' EMFF operational 
their  actual 
programme  although 
implementation over the 2014-2020 programming period. 

the  Commission  will  have 

to  monitor 

235. 

(SR, Part XVI, § 191 - 2013/PAR/0486) The Parliament calls on the Commission to 
ensure that the Member States clarify their own strategies and implement them in a 
manner that will complement the objectives of the EMFF. 

Commission's response: 

Following the adoption of the EU Strategic Guidelines on aquaculture on 29 April 
2013 (COM(2013)229), Member States set up their multiannual national strategic 
plans for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture. The Commission is monitoring 
the implementation of these plans which include Member States’ objectives and the 
measures to achieve them. In particular, this includes compliance with the ex ante 
conditionality on the multiannual national strategic plan on aquaculture, without 
which the  Commission is  not  be able to  approve  the  EMFF (European Maritime 
and  Fisheries  Fund)  operational  programme.  The  Commission  is  also  carefully 
analysing the coherence between the measures of the operational programme and 
the  measures  announced  in  the  multiannual  national  strategic  plan  for 
aquaculture.  This  will  be  completed  with  the  adoption  of  the  Member  States' 
EMFF  operational  programme  although  the  Commission  will  have  to  monitor 
their actual implementation over the 2014-2020 programming period. 

236. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  191  -  2013/PAR/0487)  The  Parliament  requests  that  the 
Commission  oversees  that  the  Member  States  bring  extra  effort  into  project 
evaluation and free themselves from lack of strategic thinking about projects. 

Commission's response: 

The  adoption  under  the  EMFF  (European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund)  of 
multiannual national plans by the Member States will facilitate project submission 
for aquaculture development by setting up a supportive administrative framework 
within which to conceive, to get financial support and to implement projects (e.g. 
more project evaluation and strategic thinking about projects). 

This will be completed with the adoption of the Member States' EMFF operational 
programme  although 
their  actual 
implementation over the 2014-2020 programming period. 

the  Commission  will  have 

to  monitor 

237. 

(SR,  Part  XVI,  §  192  -  2013/PAR/0488)  The  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
funding  of  projects  that  have  already  commenced  is  reconsidered  as  it  has  no 
additional impact. 

111 

 
Commission's response: 

Projects  whose  implementation  has  already  started  may  be  financed  from  the 
EMFF  (European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund)  on  condition  that  they  fully  fit 
into  the  strategic  framework  established  by  the  EMFF  operational  programme 
(that  should  be  in  line  with  the  Multiannual  national  strategic  plan  for 
aquaculture)  and  that  they  are  formally  selected  by  the  Managing  Authority. 
Projects  that  are  physically  completed  or  fully  implemented  at  the  moment  of 
applying  for  funds,  may  not  be  selected  for  financing  from  the  EMFF  in 
accordance with Article 65(6) of the Common Provisions Regulation. 

This will be completed with the adoption of the Member States' EMFF operational 
programme  although 
their  actual 
implementation over the 2014-2020 programming period. 

the  Commission  will  have 

to  monitor 

112 

 
SR 13/2014 EU support for rehabilitation following the earthquake in Haiti 

238. 

(SR, Part XIX, § 220 - 2013/PAR/0489) The Parliament calls for a better articulation 
of  the  humanitarian  aid  and  development  aid  with  a  stronger  link  between  relief, 
rehabilitation  and  development  by  means  of  a  permanent  LRRD  (linking  of  relief, 
rehabilitation and development) framework. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action.  

It  is  already  implementing  a  LRRD  strategy  and  will  continue  to  do  so  in  the 
framework of the resilience agenda. We are currently stepping up the integration 
of resilience-building into our programmes. 

In order to improve coherence and in view of a gradual reduction of humanitarian 
aid, DEVCO and ECHO are developing a joint approach of integrating resilience 
in  all  activities  (Joint  Humanitarian  Development  Framework)  so  as  to  ensure  a 
smooth  eventual  exiting  of  humanitarian  aid.  The  Joint  Humanitarian 
Development Framework is expected to be ready by the second semester 2015. This 
process is expected to lead to operational priorities for coordinated humanitarian 
and development interventions.  

These  measures  are  taken  in  addition  to  a  donor-led  Transition  Appeal  for  Haiti 
2015-2016 (UN chef de file), which DEVCO is following closely. 

239. 

(SR,  Part  XIX,  §  220  -  2013/PAR/0490)  The  Parliament  calls  furthermore  on  the 
Commission's  services  to  improve  the  transition  from  short-term  humanitarian 
activities  to  long-term  development  interventions  and  to  develop  a  coherent 
coordination, not only among different Union actors but also with national priorities 
through  a  common  strategy  by  means  of  a  joint  humanitarian  and  development 
framework. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action.  

It  is  already  implementing  a  LRRD  strategy  and  will  continue  to  do  so  in  the 
framework of the resilience agenda. We are currently stepping up the integration 
of resilience-building into our programmes. Collaboration between ECHO offices 
and the DEL in Haiti have been stepped up considerably since, and cooperation is 
ensured through daily contact. 

In order to improve coherence and in view of a gradual reduction of humanitarian 
aid, DEVCO and ECHO are developing a joint approach of integrating resilience 
in  all  activities  (Joint  Humanitarian  Development  Framework)  so  as  to  ensure  a 
smooth  eventual  exiting  of  humanitarian  aid.  This  process  involves  consultation 
with the Haitian national authorities and EU member states, and is expected to be 
ready by the second semester 2015. 

These  measures  are  taken  in  addition  to  a  donor-led  Transition  Appeal  for  Haiti 
2015-2016 (UN chef de file), which DEVCO is following closely. 

240. 

(SR, Part XIX, § 220 - 2013/PAR/0491) The Parliament invites the Commission to 
enter into a dialogue with Parliament if an effective coordination among the various 
financial  instruments  in  humanitarian  and  development  aid  is  hindered  by  the 
existing legal framework. 

113 

 
Commission's response: 

241. 

The  Commission  takes  note  of  this  request  and  will  inform  the  Parliament 
accordingly as necessary. 

(SR, Part XIX, § 221 - 2013/PAR/0492) The Parliament reiterates its call for putting 
more emphasis on the fight against endemic corruption; points out that humanitarian 
aid should be based on an exit strategy and stresses that funds should be channelled 
through  the  Haitian  institutions  whenever  possible,  within  the  framework  of  the 
Cotonou Agreement, in order to ensure ownership and to support the strengthening 
of  the  national  organs,  including  the  Procurement  Agency,  which  should  act  as  a 
control  filter;  invites  the  Commission  and  the  European  External  Action  Service 
(EEAS) to emphasise the conditionality matrix for sectorial budget support. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

In  order  to  foster  coherence  between  humanitarian  and  development  aid,  and  in 
view  of  a  gradual  reduction  of  humanitarian  aid,  DEVCO  and  ECHO  are 
developing  a  joint  framework  of  integrating  resilience  in  all  activities  (Joint 
Humanitarian Development Framework) so as to ensure a smooth eventual exiting 
of  humanitarian  aid.  The  Joint  Humanitarian  Development  Framework  is 
expected to be ready by the second semester 2015.     

As  mandated  through  the  Cotonou  Agreement,  the  EU  provides  support  through 
and  to  the  Government  of  the  beneficiary  country.  The  EU  also  supports  the 
strengthening  of  the  Haitian  national  institutions  through  the  112M€  State 
Building  Contract  (FED/2013/024614),  using  national  structures  and  institutions 
to  ensure  ownership  and  capacity  development.  This  programme's  aims  are 
increasing the financial capacity of the state in promoting tax reform; improving 
public finance management and national procurement; targeting priority spending 
to the implementation of the national policy in the field of primary education; and 
supporting  the  strengthening  of  the  governance,  through  support  to  the 
Framework  Programme  of  the  State  Reform  (PCRE)  and  modernisation  of  the 
public service. 

The  fight  against  corruption  and  fraud  is  a  key  concern  in  the  Commission's 
budget  support.  The  Commission  assesses  the  partner  government's  efforts  to 
improve  public  financial  management  and  fight  corruption.  A  risk  management 
framework is used to monitor risks and mitigating measures in a structured way, 
including on corruption and fraud. In the event of serious problems, or if there is 
no satisfactory progress, EU budget support is not disbursed. The combination of 
funding  with  targeted  support  for  accountability  (Parliament,  CSOs  etc)  has 
created  more  transparency.  The  fact  that  the  fight  against  corruption,  was 
systematically discussed in the budget support dialogue has also pushed continued 
progress.  

In the fight against corruption, the EU, jointly with other donors of budget support 
(ES, FR, WB, IDB), is exerting influence that results in concrete results in public 
finance management. For example, by including the adoption of a comprehensive 
Public Finance Management strategy as a precondition to any payment under the 
EU programme, the EU influenced the Haitian Government to adopt such strategy 
and action plan.  

114 

 
In  addition,  the  EU  thoroughly  analyses  and  monitors  adherence  to  the  budget 
support eligibility criteria and only authorizes disbursements upon strict fulfilment 
of these criteria. 

242. 

(SR, Part XIX, § 223 - 2013/PAR/0493) The Parliament calls for the definition of a 
good  policy  mix  in  the  logic  of  the  Union  intervention  through  a  comprehensive 
approach  to  state  and  non-state/non-governmental  stakeholders  and  to  the  sectors 
support  to  be  provided  through  rapid  sectorial  needs  assessment  and  this,  to  the 
benefit of the viability, complementarity and sustainability of projects. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

In  Haiti,  budget  support,  complementary  to  capacity  building  activities,  is  an 
efficient  implementation  modality  to  leverage  sensitive  reforms.  Nevertheless,  the 
Commission  attaches  equal  importance  to  supporting  civil  society  organisations 
and local authorities and believes that both set of actors have a crucial role to play 
in the development of Haiti. The EU supports civil society and local actors in their 
work on human rights (500.000€ in 2015 through the EIDHR), advocacy, service 
provision and reconstruction activities (housing). The 11th EDF also includes an 
important allocation of 10 M€ for support to civil society. 

In addition, a dialogue with civil society in the framework of the SBC is about to 
start and will further strengthen the capacity of civil society in Haiti. 

243. 

(SR, Part XIX, § 225 - 2013/PAR/0494) The Parliament calls for a flexible approach 
in  order  to  allow  the  Commission  to  adapt  its  measures  and  instruments  for 
assistance adequately and rapidly to a crisis and post-crisis situation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission is already implementing a LRRD strategy and will continue to do 
so  in  the  framework  of  the  resilience  agenda.  We  are  currently  stepping  up  the 
integration  of  resilience-building  into  our  programmes,  in  order  to  improve  our 
response  to  a  crisis  and  post-crisis  situation.  This  resilience  approach  builds  on 
flexibility of the different instruments in a coordinated way. In addition, the 11th 
EDF  allows  for  ad  hoc  reviews  of  the  programming  should  the  situation  in  the 
country changes. 

244. 

(SR,  Part  XIX,  §  226  -  2013/PAR/0495)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission 
and the EEAS to inform Parliament about the developments in particular with regard 
to  risk  management  and  the  preparedness  to  implement  and  achieve  programme 
objectives in a post-disaster context. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  duly  inform  Parliament  on  important  new  developments 
concerning risk management. The Commission believes that the implementation of 
an  LRRD  strategy  will  enhance  risk  management  of  cooperation  programmes 
considerably.  We  are  currently  stepping  up  the  integration  of  resilience-building 
into our programmes. In order to improve  coherence between Humanitarian and 
Development  programmes,  and  in  view  of  a  gradual  reduction  of  humanitarian 
aid, DEVCO and ECHO are developing a joint framework of integrating resilience 
in  all  activities  (Joint  Humanitarian  Development  Framework)  so  as  to  ensure  a 
smooth  eventual  exiting  of  humanitarian  aid.  The  Joint  Humanitarian 

115 

 
Development  Framework  will  include  an  analysis  of  the  most  relevant  risks  and 
propose measures on how to respond and manage them. The Joint Humanitarian 
Development Framework is expected to be ready by the second semester 2015. 

116 

 
SR 15/2014 The External Borders Fund has fostered financial solidarity but requires 
better measurement of results and needs to provide further EU added value 

245. 

(SR,  Part  XXI,  §  240  -  2013/PAR/0496)  The  Parliament  requests  that  the 
Commission  examine  whether  it  may  be  useful  to  divide  the  border  controls  and 
visas part of the ISF into several earmarked segments: one for solidarity, one for the 
fulfilment  of  consular  cooperation,  Frontex  operations  and  emergency  and  specific 
actions, and one for actions that are particularly relevant from a national perspective. 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  has  been  implemented  in  the  ISF  borders  and  visa  legal 
base.  The  ISF  borders  and  Visa  instrument  is  divided  between  the  different 
components  mentioned  by  the  rapporteur.  Under  national  programmes,  the 
solidarity  objective  is  translated  into  basic  amounts  which  are  allocated  with  a 
distribution  key  reflecting 
to  external  borders 
management. In addition to basic amounts, specific actions will finance purchase 
of equipment to be put at the disposal of Frontex for joint operations and consular 
cooperation  projects.  Finally  under  direct  management,  a  specific  funding 
component  will  be  earmarked  each  year  to  finance  actions  linked  to  emergency 
situations. 

the  workload 

in  relation 

246. 

(SR,  Part  XXI,  §  243  -  2013/PAR/0497)  The  Parliament  recommends  the 
streamlining of the procurement procedures to  ensure  the timely implementation  of 
the funding. 

Commission's response: 

The  commission  implemented  the  recommendation.  The  procurement  procedures 
applied in Member States must comply with the procurement Directive 2014/24/EU 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014.  Under  the 
External  Borders  Fund,  which  finances  large  purchase  of  equipment,  the 
Commission pays great attention to the compliance of Member states procurement 
procedures  with  the  Procurement  directive.  Therefore  the  Commission  supports 
the  streamlining  of  procurement  procedures  provided  this  is  done  in  full 
compliance with the procurement directive. 

247. 

(SR, Part XXI, § 244 - 2013/PAR/0498) The Parliament commends the Commission 
for having taken corrective financial measures in the case of a project that was found 
in breach of fundamental freedoms and human rights, but calls upon the Commission 
to  identify,  as  far  as  possible,  ex  ante  any  possible  risks  in  this  regard,  especially 
when it comes  to  the manner in which  border controls  are carried out  in respect of 
the right to seek asylum. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  implemented  the  recommendation,  financial  corrections  have 
been  applied.  The  Commission  is  paying  particular  attention  to  compliance  of 
Member  States  with  the  fundamental  rights  when  implementing  actions  financed 
by the Fund in accordance with Article 3.4 of the Internal Security Fund Border 
and  visa  legal  basis.  If  necessary,  the  Commission  will  follow-up  on  these  issues 
with  appropriate  means  in  particular  through  the  application  of  financial 
corrections. 

248. 

(SR,  Part  XXI,  §  245  -  2013/PAR/0499)  The  Parliament  emphasises  the  need  to 
improve the standard of data collection on the funded projects at a national level in 
order to increase the degree of transparency. 

117 

 
Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  has  been  implemented  in  the  ISF  borders  and  visa  legal 
base.  The  ISF  Borders  and  Visa  legal  base  provides  for  the  set  up  of  a  common 
evaluation and monitoring framework, with common compulsory indicators for all 
Member  States  for  which  targets  will  have  to  be  set  in  the  national  programmes. 
Data exchange between the Commission and Member States will be supported by 
an  IT  comprehensive  system  (SCF)  also  used  for  structural  Funds  management. 
Annual  reporting  on  targets  set  in  the  national  programme  will  therfore  be 
facilitated under the ISF borders and Visa. 

118 

 
SR 16/2014 The effectiveness of blending regional investment facility grants with 
financial institution loans to support EU external policies 

249. 

(SR,  Part  XXII,  §  250  -  2013/PAR/0500)  The  Parliament  demands,  as  a  core 
constant  principle,  the  avoidance  of  the  risk  of  financial  incentives  outweighing 
development  principles  and  demands  the  respect  of  sustainable  development 
principles  such  as  social  and  environmental  standards  and  access  to  basic  public 
goods. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

These aspects have been duly taken into account in the new application form and 
its accompanying guidelines. 

250. 

(SR,  Part  XXII,  §  251  -  2013/PAR/0501)  The  Parliament  invites  the  Commission 
and the EEAS to continue a structured/strategic dialogue on, in particular, the issue 
of how transparency and accountability would be steadily ensured and enhanced. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

This  has  already  been  ensured  by  the  work  carried  out  by  the  Platform  for 
Blending  in  External  Cooperation  (EUBEC)  where  the  EU  Member  States 
participate (in the Policy Group meetings) together with the Commission and the 
EEAS. The European Parliament is always invited to these meetings. At multiple 
occasions blending has also been subject for discussion in the EP and the Council 
(notably in relation to the European Court of Auditors' Special Report 16/2014). 

251. 

(SR,  Part  XXII,  §  253  -  2013/PAR/0502)  The  Parliament  demands,  as  a  core 
principle,  the  concentration  of  Union  funds  on  the  projects  which  wouldn't  be 
implemented without the Union money, such as projects with a low profitability, but 
which can result to an improvement of the social, environment, human rights fields. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

These  aspects  are  assessed  and  duly  taken  into  account  in  the  new  application 
form and its accompanying guidelines. 

252. 

(SR,  Part  XXII,  §  254  -  2013/PAR/0503)  The  Parliament  demands,  as  a  core 
principle, the monitoring and follow-up of the results and mid-term/long-term effects 
of the projects implemented on the social, environment, human rights fields. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  monitoring  of  the  results  is  mainly  carried  out  by  the  Lead  Finance 
their 
Institution.  The  EU  Delegations  also 
countries/regions under their responsibility. The annual progress reports produced 
by  the  Lead  Finance  Institution  include  reporting  on  results  achieved  so  far.  An 
evaluation on blending is currently being carried out where project results will be 
examined. The draft final report is expected by mid-2016. 

the  projects 

follow  up 

in 

119 

 
253. 

(SR, Part XXII, § 255 - 2013/PAR/0504) The Parliament demands that the political 
role  of  the  Commission,  as  a  politically  responsible  body  in  this  field,  be 
strengthened. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

In the context of the Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC), the 
new governance for the blending facilities has been endorsed by the EU Member 
States  (MS).  The  latters  are  voting  members  of  the  boards  of  the  blending 
frameworks created according to the different financing instruments (DCI, EDF, 
ENI  and  IPA).  The  EU  MS  formulate  opinions  on  each  individual  operation 
proposed  to  be  financed  under  the  blending  facilities.  The  creation  of  blending 
frameworks  directly  related  to  the  financing  instruments  increases  the  policy 
leverage  and  the  effective  use  of  blending  operations  for  policy  dialogue.  The 
financial  institutions  have  been  requested  to  systematically  consult  with  the  EU 
Delegations and the relevant authority at an early stage of the project preparation 
which should take the form of trilateral meetings. 

The  early  consultation  will  be  documented  in  the  application  form.  The  new 
governance also requires that the application form is supported by a letter from the 
Head of Delegation clearing the political/governance issues related to the project. 
In  addition, 
relevant 
sector  projects,  a 
national/regional/local authority is required  before  the  Commission contracts the 
project. 

for  public 

letter 

from 

the 

254. 

(SR, Part XXII, § 256 - 2013/PAR/0505) The Parliament demands the introduction 
of  common  standards  of  governance  for  such  financial  activities,  as  well  as  the 
definition of best practices and well-defined eligibility and evaluation criteria for the 
use of those financial tools. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  work  carried  out  by  the  Platform  for  Blending  in  External  Cooperation 
(EUBEC)  -  in  which  the  Commission,  the  EEAS  and  the  financial  institutions 
participate  -  consisted  of  the  creation  of  a  harmonised  governance  for  all  the 
blending  facilities  as  well  as  the  elaboration  and  establishment  of  a  new 
application  form  and  accompanying  guidelines.  The  application  form  and  its 
guidelines  include  eligibility  criteria  as  well  as  best  practices  for  the  preparation 
and  implementation  of  projects.  The  Commission  will  soon  adopt  a  manual  on 
blending  operations  which  will  be  used  by  the  staff  in  EU  delegations  and  at 
Headquarters.  As  regards  evaluation  (ex-post)  on  individual  projects,  this  is  first 
and foremost done by the Lead Financial Institution according to its own rules and 
procedures. However, specific monitoring criteria for blending projects are under 
preparation. 

255. 

(SR,  Part  XXII,  §  257  -  2013/PAR/0506)  The  Parliament  calls  on  an  enhanced 
involvement of Union Delegations in the decision process making in particular in the 
identification phase of projects through contributions to ex ante evaluation or impact 
assessment and more generally for ensuring the Union weight in the policy dialogue 
with partner countries and also as an interface with local civil society. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

120 

 
The enhanced application form includes a reference to the consultation of the EU 
Delegation. The accompanying guidelines give recommendations to ensure a more 
frequent  cooperation  with  EU  Delegations  at  both  the  preparation  and  the 
implementation phases. Instructions have also been given to Financial Institutions 
to systematically consult and inform the EU Delegations when preparing projects. 
Project proposals have now to be supported by a letter of the Head of Delegation 
specifying  the  EU  Delegation's  involvement  in  blending  from  the  start  of  the 
project. With the above measures taken, the objective is to get the EU Delegations 
involved in each step of the project cycle of the blended projects. 

256. 

(SR, Part XXII, § 258 - 2013/PAR/0507) The Parliament insists on the necessity to 
achieve  the  highest  level  of  transparency  and  accountability  by  accessing  to 
exhaustive  and  sound  budgetary  information  and  financial  data  relating  to  projects 
funded  by  these  investment  facilities  to  allow  Parliament  power  of  scrutiny  and 
consent. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

Article 140 of the Financial Regulation requests the Commission to report to the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  financial  instruments.  The  first 
reporting  exercise  was  undertaken  and  finalised  in  2014.  Furthermore,  DG 
DEVCO  is  updating  its  website  on  blending  under  which  dedicated  pages  for 
individual  facilities  will  be  set  up.  It  will  also  include  a  project  database  with 
information on the funded projects. 

257. 

(SR, Part XXII, § 258 - 2013/PAR/0508) The Parliament calls for regular reporting 
to  Parliament  on  the  use  of  these  financial  instruments  and  results,  in  particular  on 
the assessment of the financial and non-financial leveraging and additionality while 
recalling complying with the provisions of Article 140 of the Financial Regulation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Article 140 of the Financial Regulation requests the Commission to report to the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  financial  instruments.  The  first 
reporting exercise was undertaken and finalised in 2014. 

121 

 
SR 19/2014 EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia 

258. 

(SR,  Part  XXIV,  §  273  -  2013/PAR/0509)  The  Parliament  (invites  the  Serbian 
authorities  to  improve  the  quality  of,  and  to  further  rationalise,  their  national 
strategies and action plans, and to adequately address the various political and socio-
economic  issues;)  invites  the  Commission,  if  necessary,  to  make  itself  available  to 
provide the required technical support in this regard. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  request  is  already  addressed  in  the 
action  plan  for  Recommendation  §  80(a)  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors' 
Special  Report  19/2014 and considers it as implemented. In the  lifetime of  IPA  I 
and  for  IPA  II  measures  were  included  in  line  with  the  newly  developed 
methodology  and  the  move  to  a  sectoral  approach,  which  increases  the  links 
between policy priorities and assistance programming. The key policy priorities for 
programming  are  reflected  in  the  new  country  strategy  paper.  Following  the 
opening of accession negotiations, in each sector, programming is directly linked 
to  priorities  identified  in  the  relevant  chapters,  first  in  the  screening  reports  and 
subsequently  in  the  opening  or  closing  benchmarks,  wherever  applicable.  The 
programming  guide  includes  sector  planning  documents  which  are  an  obligatory 
tool  for  prioritisation  in  each  sector  and  the  EC  stands  ready  to  assist  Serbia 
through  its  financial  assistance  to  further  strengthen  its  strategies  and  action 
plans. 

259. 

(SR, Part XXIV, § 275 - 2013/PAR/0510) The Parliament urges the Commission and 
the Union Delegation in Serbia to prevent  the problems which  occurred in  the first 
part of the 2007–2013 programming period, namely the selection of underdeveloped 
or problematic projects. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  request  is  already  addressed  in  the 
action  plan  for  Recommendation  §  80(b),  (c)  and  (d)  of  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors' Special Report 19/2014 and will take action in order to take into account 
lessons learned from past projects, strengthen the needs assessment underlying the 
expected outputs and reinforce the principle of conditionality. The target date for 
implementation is 31/12/2015. 

260. 

(SR, Part XXIV, § 278 - 2013/PAR/0511) The Parliament insists on the necessity to 
strengthen the current protection for whistle-blowers which is outlined in the 2013–
2018 national anti-corruption strategy. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  request  is  already  addressed  and 
implemented.  The  whistle-blower  protection  law  was  adopted  in  December  2014 
and  entered  into  force  in  June  2015.  The  implementation  of  the  law  (e.g. 
effectiveness  of  whistle-blowing  protection  mechanism)  is  monitored  closely  and 
remains to be assessed on the ground. 

261. 

(SR,  Part  XXIV,  §  279  -  2013/PAR/0512)  The  Parliament  demands  that  the 
Commission pay adequate attention to define the objectives, to assess the needs and 
to  learn  lessons  from  past  projects,  as  well  as  to  avoid  delays  and  inefficient  or 
ineffective procurement procedures. 

122 

 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  request  is  already  addressed  in  the 
action  plan  for  Recommendation  §  80(b),  (c)  and  (d)  of  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors' Special Report 19/2014 and will take action in order to take into account 
lessons learned from past projects, strengthen the needs assessment underlying the 
expected outputs and reinforce the principle of conditionality. The target date for 
implementation is 31/12/2015. 

123 

 
SR 21/2014 EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money 

262. 

(SR,  Part  XXVI,  §  291  -  2013/PAR/0513)  The  Parliament  proposes  that  the 
Commission  should  report  back  to  Parliament's  Committee  on  Budgetary  Control 
within  a  year  from  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  with  progress  against  these 
recommendations (SR 21/2014). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission agrees and will take the requested action. 

263. 

(SR, Part XXVI, § 293 - 2013/PAR/0514) The Parliament recommends that funding 
only be granted to financially viable airports. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts partially this recommendation. The Commission notes in 
fact that Member States may wish to maintain in function regional airports serving 
specific  regional  connectivity  needs  (for  example,  poorly  connected  regions  or 
isolated or island areas). 

264. 

(SR,  Part  XXVI,  §  294  -  2013/PAR/0515)  The  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission examine all new projects in light of a catchment area analysis to ensure 
viability,  taking  into  account  in  each  case  the  importance  of  regional  airports  for 
accessibility and mobility in the Union. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  accepts  The  Commission  accepts  the  recommendation  and  will 
examine all major projects  under the  quality review process. However, under the 
shared management and also taking into account the vast number of the projects, 
the  selection  of  the  other  projects  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States  and 
Commission  is  responsible  for  the  monitoring  on  programme,  not  project  level. 
The  Commission  agrees  that  regional  airports  play  a  vital  role  in  ensuring  the 
connectivity. 

265. 

(SR,  Part  XXVI,  §  295  -  2013/PAR/0516)  The  Parliament  considers  that  the 
Commission  should  closely  monitor,  as  a  priority,  Member  States  that  the  report 
identifies as having particularly problematic projects in the past. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  accepts  the  recommendation,  but  notes  that  problems  identified 
in the past by the report have little chances of repeating in the period 2014-2020. 
Investments  in  airport  infrastructure  in  the  Member  States  where  most  problems 
were identified by the report will be very limited in 2014-2020 they will not include 
new greenfield airports or capacity expansion (except in limited and fully justified 
cases) and will focus mostly on SESAR (air traffic management systems). 

124 

 
Eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds 

266. 

(EDF, § 12 - 2013/PAR/0517) The Parliament urges the Commission to intensify its 
efforts in these specific areas of cooperation by refining the existing corrective action 
plan which was set up, especially when quantifiable errors point to shortcomings in 
the checks by international organisations on compliance with contractual provisions 
as a part of the general effort to improve the risk management methods and overall 
controlling and management systems. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission  (DG  DEVCO)  has  already  drafted  a  new  Action  Plan,  that 
replaces  the  previous  one,  addressing  the  main  areas  for  action  in  the  light  of 
identified risk areas and causes of errors. The plan includes specific actions aimed 
at  coping  with  high  risk  control  areas  (International  Organisations  and  Direct 
Management  grants),  general  actions  regarding  the  control  system  and  actions 
regarding the modulation of the control system in view of the risks identified and 
the cost-effectiveness of controls. 

267. 

(EDF,  §  15  -  2013/PAR/0518)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  pay 
regular attention to the quality and adequacy of the ex ante controls performed by all 
the  actors  (Commission  staff  and  external  auditors)  before  projects  payments  are 
made and especially given the high political and operational risk environment. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

DG DEVCO is currently completing the work for the development and immediate 
implementation  of  a  quality  assessment  of  ex  ante  verifications.  This  quality 
assessment will be applied as well to internal audits in due time. Moreover, the new 
Action  Plan  (to  address  the  weaknesses  in  the  implementation  of  the  control 
system) includes a specific action intended to reinforce the ex ante controls in case 
of insufficient assurance provided by the work carried out by auditors. 

268. 

(EDF, § 18 - 2013/PAR/0519) The Parliament urges the Commission's Directorate-
General  for  Development  and  Cooperation  (DG  DEVCO)  to  act  upon  the 
recommendation of the Court in 2011 to strengthen the capacity of its Internal Audit 
Capacity as soon as possible so that it could perform its tasks more effectively. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The reason for this is that the Commission endorsed the decision on 5 November 
2014 to re-organise the  internal audit function within the  European Commission 
and  Executive  Agencies  by  centralising  this  task  into  the  Internal  Audit  Service 
(IAS) as from 1 January 2015 onwards. 

As a consequence, the internal audit activity within the DGs was gradually phased 
out and the IACs' core business files handed over to the IAS beginning of March 
2015. 

269. 

(EDF, § 21 - 2013/PAR/0520) The Parliament calls on the Commission to take the 
Post-2015  Development  Agenda  and 
the  Sustainable 
Developments  Goals  (SDG)  once  adopted  into  account  as  a  basis  for  the  CoA 
performance audit. 

the  negotiations  on 

125 

 
Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action since it does not apply to 
the  8th,  9th  and  10th  EDFs,  which  actually  expired.  Adoption  of  the  post-2015 
agenda is  expected as of September  2015. Due consideration will be taken in the 
framework of the ongoing 11th EDF, entered into force only in March 2015. 

270. 

(EDF,  §  24  -  2013/PAR/0521)  The  Parliament  urges  the Commission  to  pursue its 
efforts  to  develop  and  set  up  new  functions  in  the  audit  module  of  its  CRIS 
management system, and in particular, the follow-up of all audit reports and all types 
of evaluation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Work has been actively pursued by DG DEVCO on the completion of the new IT 
audit tool replacing the current CRIS audit module and including important new 
functionalities.  It  is  expected  to  be  launched  and  to  be  fully  operational  by 
September 2015 at the latest. 

271. 

(EDF, § 25 - 2013/PAR/0522) The Parliament invites DG DEVCO’s Headquarters 
to  consistently  support  them  in  the  management  of  their  portfolio  according  to 
respective risk components through CRIS. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  recommendation  cannot  be  accepted  as  its 
formulation  does  not  meet  the  necessary  (SMART)  criteria  for  its  acceptance  by 
the Commission, for the following reasons: it is not specific enough as it does not 
clearly  describe  the  types  of  actions  recommended  and  it  is  also  vague  on  the 
manner in which the recommendation should be implemented; it is not measurable 
as it does not allow to assess the situation at any time in terms of progress towards 
completion; it is not time-framed: there is no indication of time allowing to set an 
appropriate time-frame for the timely implantation of the recommendation. Unless 
further clarified, the Commission shall reject this recommendation. 

272. 

(EDF,  §  28  -  2013/PAR/0523)  The  Parliament  calls  on  DG  DEVCO  to  indicate  in 
the annual activity report progress achieved or specific difficulties encountered in the 
implementation of the action plan. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  follow-up  of  the  reservations  issued  by  DG  DEVCO  in  the  2012  and  2013 
Annual  Activity  Reports  and  the  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  related 
Action Plan to address weaknesses in its internal control system was reported in an 
adequate  manner  in  the  AAR  for  the  year  2014  (section  3:  "Assessment  of  the 
effectiveness of the internal control systems"). 

273. 

(EDF,  §  36  -  2013/PAR/0524)  The  Parliament  requests  a  strong  support  of  anti-
corruption  mechanisms  as  corruption  seems  to  be  one  of  the  key  issues  which 
reduces  the  effectiveness  of  the  support  programmes  and  thus  leads  to  lack  of 
effectiveness of European development cooperation. 

126 

 
Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  fight  against  corruption  and  fraud  is  a  key  concern  in  the  Commission's 
Budget  Support.  The  Commission  assesses  the  partner  government's  efforts  to 
improve  public  financial  management  and  fight  corruption.  A  risk  management 
framework is used to monitor risks and mitigating measures in a structured way, 
including on corruption and fraud. In the event of serious problems, or if there is 
no satisfactory progress, EU Budget Support is not disbursed. The combination of 
funding  with targeted support for accountability (Parliament, CSOs...) has created 
more  transparency.  The  fact  that  the  fight  against  corruption,  was  systematically 
discussed in the Budget Support dialogue has also pushed continued progress. 

274. 

(EDF,  §  37  -  2013/PAR/0525)  The  Parliament  calls  for  detailed  reports  to  be 
published on the way funds are used in order to increase transparency and to ensure 
that the funds made available by the Union are more readily traceable. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Union  funds  are  being  traced  by  the  Commission.  A  formal  verification  of  the 
transfer  of  funds  in  the  partner  country's  treasury  account  takes  place  following 
disbursements.  Subsequently,  union  funds  can  be  traced  in  government  accounts 
as  part  of  revenues.  The  fungibility  of  funds  refers  to  treasury  management. 
Budget execution, however, is governed by the budget law. Budget allocations and 
execution  are  verified  by  the  Union  to  ensure  that  they  comply  with  the  agreed 
policies  and  priorities,  and  are  reported  on  in  disbursement  files.  A  risk 
management  framework  for  Budget  Support  operations  furthermore  identifies, 
mitigates, and reports on public financial management risks. Periodic evaluations 
report on the financial contribution of EU Budget Support to results. 

275. 

(EDF, § 39 - 2013/PAR/0526) The Parliament demands, as regards sectorial budget 
support, that the sectorial conditionality matrix be systematically used and reinforced 
and that adequate benchmarks for Union intervention be defined. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission's  new  guidelines  on  Budget  Support  issued  in  2012  contain 
explicit  instructions  on  conditionalities  and  performance  indicators  designed  for 
Budget  Support  operations.  These  are  verified  through  the  control  chain  during 
the 
each 
disbursement. Conditionalities and performance indicators, as well as the expected 
results,  are  systematically  taken  up  in  policy  and  political  dialogue  as  well,  as 
appropriate. 

preparation 

operations 

as  well 

before 

the 

as 

of 

276. 

(EDF, § 41 - 2013/PAR/0527) The Parliament calls on the Commission to strongly 
support the development of parliamentary control and oversight bodies, competence 
and  capabilities  in  beneficiary  countries,  also  by  continuously  providing  technical 
assistance. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

127 

 
The  approval  of  EU  Budget  Support  programmes  as  well  as  disbursements  are 
subject to eligibility, including in terms of "Public Finance Management (PFM)" 
and  "transparency  and  oversight  of  the  budget"  (the  latter  for  programmes 
approved  in  and  after  2013).  Both  criteria  support  public  audits  of  recipient 
countries'  public  finances  and  scrutiny  by  the  national  Parliament,  as  well  as 
information  to  the  public.  Finally,  the  EU’s  risk  management  framework  for 
Budget Support (BS) programmes assesses the external audit dimension within the 
PFM  risk  category  (and  has  a  separate  category  for  corruption  and  fraud  risks). 
Consequently,  the  EU  finances  systematically  capacity  development  programmes 
supporting  national  legislative  and  oversight  bodies.  The  fact  that  the  oversight 
and  domestic  accountability  is  systematically  covered  in  the  Budget  Support 
dialogue has also pushed continued progress. The Commission is working closely 
with the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) and 
has  recently  decided  the  financing  of  the  "Pan  African  programme  on  good 
financial  governance"  covering,  inter  alia,  the  African  Organisation  of  Supreme 
Audit Institutions (AFROSAI) and AFROPAC. 

277. 

(EDF, § 42 - 2013/PAR/0528) The Parliament calls on the Commission to block the 
transfer  of  funds  in  countries  that  have  a  high  rate  of  corruption  and  that  have  not 
undertaken targeted policies to combat the phenomenon. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  fight  against  corruption  and  fraud  is  a  key  concern  in  the  Commission's 
Budget  Support.  The  Commission  assesses  the  partner  government's  efforts  to 
improve  public  financial  management  and  fight  corruption.  A  risk  management 
framework is used to monitor risks and mitigating measures in a structured way, 
including on corruption and fraud. In the event of serious problems, or if there is 
no  satisfactory  progress,  EU  Budget  Support  is  not  disbursed.  When  the 
Commission  receives  concrete  evidence  of  corruption,  the  EC  suspends  funding 
until  appropriate  measures  have  been  taken.  The  combination  of  funding with 
targeted  support  for  accountability  (Parliaments,  CSOs...)  has  created  more 
transparency.  The  fact  that  the  fight  against  corruption,  was  systematically 
discussed in the Budget Support dialogue has also pushed continued progress. 

278. 

(EDF,  §  47  -  2013/PAR/0529)  The  Parliament  calls  for  the  visibility  of  Union 
funding to be strongly respected in multi-donor initiatives, particularly when Union 
funding is disbursed in a risky environment. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The EU's visibility in multi-donor initiatives in which it partakes (trust funds, joint 
financing,  delegated  cooperation,  grants…)  is 
legally  guaranteed  through 
pertinent  provisions  in  the  funding  agreements  between  the  EU  and  its 
implementing partners. PAGODA, the new template for Pillar Assessed Grants or 
Delegation  Agreements,  has  several  provisions  to  ensure  visibility  of  the  EU 
contribution; primarily, Article 8, that details the obligations of the implementing 
partner on Communication and visibility. Within this Article, section 8.8 foresees 
redress  measures  in  case  of  problems  arising  during  implementation.  Visibility 
obligations  are  transferred  to  sub-delegatees,  contractors  and  grantees,  affiliated 
entities,  co-beneficiaries  and  partners  receiving  financial  support.  Reports  by 

128 

 
implementing partners must inform on the implementation of the visibility Annex 
and additional measures to identify the EU as source of financing. 

Furthermore, Communication and Visibility Plans, contractual annexes in which 
due  and  proper  visibility  for  the  project  and  the  EU  as  funding  partner  are 
determined  and  contractually  agreed,  are  now  an  intrinsic  part  of  the  EU's 
financial  agreements  with  its  implementation  partners.  Evaluations,  results-
oriented  monitoring,  and  audits  (esp.  value  for  money  audits)  of  EU  funded 
actions  most  of  the  time  take  visibility  into  account  in  their  respective 
methodologies. 

279. 

(EDF,  §  49  -  2013/PAR/0530)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  apply 
strict  subcontracting  conditions  and  recalls  that  those  entrusted  entities  shall 
guarantee a strong level of protection of the financial interests of the Union for this 
mode of implementation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Indirect management entrusted to ACP Partner countries who can in turn further 
entrust  budget  implementation  tasks  to  entities  governed  by  private  law  under  a 
service contract, in the framework of programme estimates. A programme estimate 
lays  down  the  agreed  activities  together  with  the  resources,  technical  and 
administrative provisions for the implementation of contracts of small amounts. A 
competitive  tender  takes  place  to  select  the  entity  which  will  manage  the 
programme estimates and to appoint the imprest administrator and the accounting 
officer.  The  protection  of  the  EU  financial  interests  is  guaranteed  through  the 
checks made in the tender phase, but also through the financial guarantees to be 
issued by the private company prior to the signature of the service contract and the 
endorsement  of  any  programme  estimate.  The  service  providers  assume  full 
financial  responsibility  for  the  use  of  the  EU  funds.  In  case  of  ineligible 
expenditure, funds are recovered from them. Following the entry into force of the 
2012  Financial  Regulation  the  Commission  has  developed  new  templates  and 
updated the existing ones. The possibility of using such program estimates existed 
already  under  the  previous  EDFs  and  is  currently  laid  down  in  article  17(3)(last 
paragraph)  of  the  11th  EDF  Financial  Regulation  (COUNCIL  REGULATION 
(EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015). 

280. 

(EDF, § 50 - 2013/PAR/0531) The Parliament requests that further clarification be 
swiftly provided on funds pooling (including trust funds) and related risks regarding 
the regularity of transactions, namely when the Commission’s financial contributions 
to  multi-donor  projects  are  pooled  with  funds  from  other  donors,  without  being 
earmarked for a specific identifiable items of eligible expenditure. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

As the same topic is covered by recommendation 2013/PAR/0342, the Commission 
groups  its  comments  into  an  extended  single  text,  which  provides  further 
clarification  on  risks  regarding  the  regularity  of  transactions  in  multi-donor 
actions, including trust funds. 

281. 

(EDF,  §  51  -  2013/PAR/0532)  The  Parliament  requests  to  be  informed  about  the 
preliminary  survey  of  controls  and  management  systems  performed  by  the 
Commission on other associated international organisations. 

129 

 
Commission's response: 

The Commission will provide information on the results of the pillar assessments 
of  international  organisations.  The  objective  of  these  assessments  is  to  provide 
reasonable assurance to the European Commission as to whether the international 
organisations  fulfil  the  requirements  set  out  in  points  (a)  to  (d)  of  the  first 
subparagraph of Article 60.2 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the General 
Budget of the European Commission and Article 29.1 of the Financial Regulation 
applicable to the European Development Fund (EDF). 

282. 

(EDF, § 51 - 2013/PAR/0533) The Parliament requests information on the level of 
comparability and consistency of the already existing systems. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  new  legal  requirements  were  introduced  by  the  2012 
Financial Regulation, and the Commission is not in the position and does not have 
the authority to judge the comparability and consistency between new and old legal 
requirements. 

283. 

(EDF,  §  52  -  2013/PAR/0534)  The  Parliament  asks  to  be  informed  about  the 
preventive,  mitigating  or  other  measures  that  could  be  activated  in  case  of  a 
divergent  view  on  the  level  of  assurance  to  be  attained  and  the  correlative  risk 
involved for the entire spending. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  request  of  the  Parliament  is  formulated  in  an 
unclear  and  too  complex  manner  so  that  it  does  not  allow  for  a  proper 
understanding  and  therefore  for  the  identification  of  appropriate  actions  to 
address  it.  Unless  further  clarified  or  re-formulated,  the  Commission  shall  reject 
the request. 

284. 

(EDF, § 68 - 2013/PAR/0535) The Parliament demands the introduction of common 
standards of implementation for such financial activities, as well as the definition of 
best  practices  and  eligibility  and  evaluation  criteria;  believes  that  coherent 
management  rules  such  as  structured  reporting,  clear  monitoring  frameworks  and 
oversight  conditions  will  reduce  transaction  costs  and  possible  duplication  of 
payments due to the higher level of transparency and accountability. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

This has been partly fulfilled through the elaboration and establishment of a new 
enhanced  application  form  and  accompanying  guidelines.  The  application  form 
and  its  guidelines  include  eligibility  criteria  as  well  as  best  practices  for  the 
preparation  and  implementation  of  projects.  The  Commission  will  soon  adopt  a 
manual on blending operations which will be used by the staff in EU delegations 
and at Headquarters. As regards evaluation (ex-post) on individual projects, this is 
first  and  foremost  done  by  the  Lead  Financial  Institution  according  to  its  own 
rules and procedures. However, specific monitoring  criteria  for blending projects 
is under preparation. 

130 

 
285. 

(EDF,  §  69  -  2013/PAR/0536)  The  Parliament  calls  for  regular  reporting  to 
Parliament on the use of these financial instruments and results to allow Parliament 
to have the power of scrutiny and consent, namely on the assessment of the financial 
and non-financial leveraging and additionality. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Article 140 of the Financial Regulation requests the Commission to report to the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  financial  instruments.  The  first 
reporting  exercise  was  undertaken  and  finalised  in  2014.  Furthermore,  DG 
DEVCO  is  updating  its  website  on  blending  under  which  dedicated  pages  for 
individual  facilities  will  be  set  up.  It  will  also  include  a  project  database  with 
information on the funded projects. 

286. 

(EDF, § 73 - 2013/PAR/0537) The Parliament asks the Commission and the EEAS 
to provide the most recent list of priorities for European development aid in the DRC 
as  a  follow-up  from  last  year's  discharge  report,  which  suggested  a  more  limited 
number of priorities to allow for a better and more focused development aid strategy. 

Commission's response: 

The 11th EDF National Indicative Programme (NIP) for the DRC was signed in 
June 2014. In line with the Agenda for Change, four sectors of concentration were 
selected:  

1/ Health;  

2/Environment and sustainable agriculture;  

3/ Strengthening good governance and the rule of law;  

4/ Rehabilitation of 150 km of the RN1.  

All  the  sectors  have  been  chosen  after  a  thorough  consultation  with  the 
government, civil society and other donors. 

287. 

(EDF, § 75 - 2013/PAR/0538) The Parliament calls for a continuous articulation of 
humanitarian  aid  and  development  aid,  with  a  stronger  link  between  relief, 
rehabilitation  and  development  by  means  of  a  permanent  Linking  Relief, 
Rehabilitation  and  Development  (LRRD) 
the 
Commission  to  enter  into  a  dialogue  with  Parliament;  believes  also  that  the 
involvement of local civil society can strengthen the use of the local knowledge base. 

interservices  platform; 

invites 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

In  view  of  a  gradual  reduction  of  humanitarian  aid,  the  Commission's  DG 
DEVCO and DG ECHO are developing a joint approach of integrating resilience 
in  all  activities  (Joint  Humanitarian  Development  Framework)  so  as  to  ensure  a 
smooth  eventual  exiting  of  humanitarian  aid.  The  Joint  Humanitarian 
Development Framework is expected to be ready by the second semester 2015. The 
Humanitarian Implementation Plan that represents the ECHO strategy in Haiti is 
based  on  the  resilience  and  LRRD  approach  and  is  developed  with  Civil  Society 
Organisations  as  key  stakeholders.  The  Commission  also  channels  important 
resources  for  LRRD  actions  implemented  by  Civil  Society  Organisations,  among 
them in the areas of food security, WASH, environment and climate change. 

131 

 
The  EU  supports  civil  society  and  local  actors  in  their  work  on  human  rights 
(500.000€  engaged  in  2015  through  the  EIDHR  instrument),  advocacy,  service 
provision and reconstruction activities (housing). The 11th EDF also includes an 
important allocation of 10 M€ for support to civil society. 

288. 

(EDF,  §  76  -  2013/PAR/0539)  The  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  and  the 
EEAS to emphasise the conditionality matrix for sectorial budget support. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  new  guidelines  on  Budget  Support  (2012)  contain  explicit  instructions  on 
conditionalities and performance indicators deign for Budget Support operations. 
These  are  verified  throughout  the  control  chain  during  the  preparation  of  the 
operations as well as before each disbursement. Conditionalities and performance 
indicators, as well as the expected results, are systematically taken up in policy and 
political dialogue as well, as appropriate. 

289. 

(EDF,  §  79  -  2013/PAR/0540)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  and  the 
EEAS to inform Parliament about the developments, in particular with regard to risk 
management and preparations to implement and achieve programme objectives in a 
post-disaster context. 

Commission's response: 

See reply to recommendation 2013/PAR/0495. 

Disaster  risk  reduction  is  considered  important  in  a  context  like Haiti,  where  the 
population  is  highly  vulnerable  and  there  is  a  high  risk  of  natural  hazards. 
Therefore,  apart  from  mainstreaming  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  in  humanitarian 
projects  to  the  largest  extent  possible,  also  specific  support  to  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  continues.  Thereby  linkage  is  sought  with  the  strategy  of  the  national 
Civil Protection authorities as appropriate in order to foster institutionalization. 

290. 

(EDF,  §  85  -  2013/PAR/0541)  The  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  again  to  duly 
consider the financial impact of the inclusion of the EDFs for Member States in the 
coming assessment and a possible binding Member State contribution key. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. 

Even though applying the own resource rules for the financing of the EDFs would 
obviously have an impact on EU MS’ contributions, with some of them increasing 
their  contribution  and  others  reducing  it,  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
discussions  and  the  decision  as  regards  their  inclusion  in  the  general  budget 
should  remain  mainly  at  a  political  level  and  should  not  be  bound  by  financial 
considerations. 

Besides,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  have 
already  noted,  in  the  inter-institutional  agreement  of  2  December  2013,  that  the 
Commission,  with  a  view  to,  inter  alia,  enhancing  the  democratic  scrutiny  of 
development policy, intends to propose the EDF's budgetisation as of 2021. 

132 

 
Performance, financial management and control of EU agencies 

291. 

(Agencies, § 1 - 2013/PAR/0542) The Parliament calls on the Commission and the 
Union Agencies Network (the "Network”) to improve their communication policies 
to ensure agencies communicate effectively with citizens, in order to raise awareness 
of productivity and achievements. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission notes that in accordance with the Common approach, the content 
and  implementation  of  an  agency's  communication  strategy  should  be  coherent, 
relevant and coordinated with the strategies and activities of the Commission and 
the other institutions in order to take into consideration the broader EU image. 

292. 

(Agencies, § 14 - 2013/PAR/0543) The Parliament considers it necessary to carry out 
a  serious  assessment  to  evaluate  the  possibility  of  merging  agencies  that  perform 
similar  tasks,  not  only  to  avoid  wasting  resources  but  also  to  create  a  critical  mass 
that makes the agencies truly effective. 

Commission's response: 

In  accordance  with  the  Common  Approach  on  EU  Decentralised  agencies,  the 
Commission  may,  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  consider  the  possibilities  for  merging 
agencies. This is done in accordance with the Better regulation guidelines. 

293. 

(Agencies,  §  31  -  2013/PAR/0544)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
review its plan regarding the additional staff reductions and to adapt it according to 
the workload and resource demands of each agency. 

Commission's response: 

In the preparation of the annual Draft Budget, the Commission makes an in-depth 
assessment of the resources needs of each agency to properly carry out their tasks, 
taking  into  account  their  requests  and  compatibility  with  the  overall  budgetary 
framework, including the achievement of the 5% staff reduction target laid down 
in the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 2 December 2013. 

294. 

(Agencies, § 37 - 2013/PAR/0545) The Parliament notes that the Guidelines are not 
legally binding on the agencies and calls upon the Commission to examine how more 
binding agreements with the agencies can be concluded to promote transparency and 
to avoid conflicts of interest. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission provided in 2013 guidelines for conflict of interest policies in EU 
decentralised  agencies.  While  these  Guidelines  aim  to  provide  a  common  set  of 
principles  and  tools,  agencies  are  legally  independent  entities  and  they  alone  are 
responsible for developing and implementing their own framework on conflicts of 
interest and for reporting on it. 

Furthermore,  before  adoption  by  agencies,  implementing  rules  on  conflict  of 
interest regarding agencies staff covered by the Staff Regulations are submitted for 
the  Commission's  formal  agreement  pursuant  to  Article  110(2)  of  the  Staff 
Regulations.  At  that  occasion,  the  Commission  verifies  their  content  and 
compliance with the Guidelines. 

295. 

(Agencies,  §  44  -  2013/PAR/0546)  The  Parliament  encourages  the  Commission  to 
conduct regular evaluation of transparency and integrity of the agencies and to make 
the results of such evaluation publicly available. 

133 

 
296. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  does  not  envisage  conducting  a  regular  evaluation  of  the 
transparency and integrity (sound operations)  of the agencies as many aspects of 
the agencies’ own evaluations should already cover these aspects.  

The  Commission  will  indicate  to  the  agencies  the  interest  in  their  evaluations, 
which are published, including clear references to considerations of transparency 
and integrity. 

(Agencies  (European  Aviation  Safety  Agency),  §  9  -  2013/PAR/0547)  The 
Parliament  recalls  Parliament's  position  in  the  budgetary  procedure  that  staff 
financed  by  fees  paid  by  the  industry  and  consequently  not  financed  by  the  Union 
budget should not be affected by the 2 % yearly cut applied by the Union; considers 
that the Commission should treat agencies financed primarily by the Union budget as 
a separate case and put forward a specific framework for agencies financed  mainly 
by  operators  fees,  which  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  services  provided  by  the 
agency concerned. 

Commission's response: 

The 5% staff reduction in the IIA makes no distinction between different types of 
agencies:  the  staff  reduction  is  to  be  applied  to  all  EU  institutions  and  bodies, 
without  exceptions.  Nonetheless,  the  Commission  intends  to  look  further  into  the 
issue  of  better  measuring  workload,  performance  and  efficiency  of  fee-financed 
agencies, so as to ensure the adequate services to industry. 

297. 

(Agencies  (European  Aviation  Safety  Agency),  §  15  -  2013/PAR/0548)  The 
Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to  take  the  opportunity  available  this  year  to 
amend  the  act  establishing  the  (European  Aviation  Safety)  Agency  with  a  view  to 
securing a headquarters agreement, allowing the Agency to operate unimpeded; calls, 
therefore, to be notified of the final decision on the Agency’s headquarters. 

Commission's response: 

While  the  Commission  deplores  the  absence  of  a  headquarters'  agreement  with 
EASA, it is not appropriate for the Commission at this stage to make commitments 
concerning  forthcoming  proposals  going  beyond  what  has  already  been 
announced  in  the  Commission  work  programme  and  related  roadmaps.  The 
Commission  notes that according to the  Common Approach on EU decentralised 
agencies,  "all  agencies  should  have  headquarters  agreements,  which  should  be 
concluded  before  the  agency  starts  its  operational  phase.  Agencies  still  lacking 
headquarters  agreement  and  the  host  country  in  question  should  reach  an 
agreement in accordance with the legal order of the relevant Member State. 

298. 

(Agencies (European Banking Authority), § 26  - 2013/PAR/0549) The Parliament 
calls on the Commission, if it considers it appropriate according to its assessment, to 
propose  by  2017  a  financing  system  for  the  (European  Banking)  Authority  solely 
based on the introduction of fees by market participants, or based on combining fees 
by market participants with basic funding from a separate budget line of the general 
budget of the Union. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the request. As part of the Commission's 2014 review of 
the ESAs (and previous reviews by others such as IMF, EP), evidence has emerged 
of  the  difficulties  that  some  Member  States  face  in  meeting  their  funding 
commitments to the ESAs. Public funding has also proved a difficult tool to equate 

134 

 
with  the  tasks  being  given  to  the  ESAs.  Currently,  the  ESAs  are  60%  funded  by 
the  EU  Budget. 
national  competent  authorities,  and  40%  funded  from 
Consequently, President Juncker set out in his mission letter to Commissioner Hill 
that  the  ESAs  should  be  transformed  into  privately-funded  EU  agencies  by  the 
financial sector. Moving to industry funded ESAs will require amendments to the 
current legal framework. Preparatory work is ongoing, which could possibly lead 
to a proposal in 2017. 

299. 

(Agencies  (European  Insurance  and  Occupational  Pensions  Authority),  §  18  - 
2013/PAR/0550)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission,  if  proven  by  the 
Commission's assessment, to propose by 2017 a financing system for the (European 
Insurance and Occupational Pensions) Authority solely based on the introduction of 
fees by market participants, or based on combining fees by market participants with 
basic funding from a separate budget line of the general budget of the Union. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the request. As part of the Commission's 2014 review of 
the ESAs (and previous reviews by others such as IMF, EP), evidence has emerged 
of  the  difficulties  that  some  Member  States  face  in  meeting  their  funding 
commitments to the ESAs. Public funding has also proved a difficult tool to equate 
with  the  tasks  being  given  to  the  ESAs.  Currently,  the  ESAs  are  60%  funded  by 
national  competent  authorities,  and  40%  funded  from 
the  EU  Budget. 
Consequently, President Juncker set out in his mission letter to Commissioner Hill 
that  the  ESAs  should  be  transformed  into  privately-funded  EU  agencies  by  the 
financial sector. Moving to industry funded ESAs will require amendments to the 
current legal framework. Preparatory work is ongoing, which could possibly lead 
to a proposal in 2017. 

300. 

(Agencies (European Agency for the Οperational Management of Large-Scale IT 
Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), § 15 - 2013/PAR/0551) The 
Parliament calls on the Commission to include the advantages and disadvantages of 
having three different locations in its evaluation report to be prepared in accordance 
to  Article  31  of  the  Agency’s  founding  Regulation,  in  particular  expected  budget 
savings,  reflections  on  practical  arrangements  and  costs  with  regard  to  a  potential 
centralisation of its activities. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  intends  indeed  to  assess  in  the  ongoing  evaluation,  under  the 
efficiency  criterion,  the  impacts  (operational,  HR,  communication  etc.)  of  the 
geographical dispersal and the way it is handled by the Agency. As per the terms of 
reference  adopted  by  the  Management  Board  of  eu-LISA  in  November  2014,  the 
evaluation  will  assess 
the  eu-LISA's  governance, 
organisational  structure,  locations  and  operations  as  created  by  the  establishing 
Regulation been conducive to its efficiency and to achieving economies of scale. 

to  what  extent  have 

135 

 
Bodies set up under the TFEU and the Euratom Treaty 

301. 

(ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking, § 10 - 2013/PAR/0552) The Parliament is concerned 
that  there  is  poor  information  regarding  the  evaluation  of  the  Member  States'  and 
Research  and  Development  organisations'  contributions  corresponding  to  the  actual 
level of Union's payments; in line with the information received, the contribution of 
the Member States is under the level of 1,8 as requested by the Joint Undertaking’s 
statute;  calls  on  the  Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority 
concerning  the  contributions  of  all  members  other  than  the  Commission,  including 
the  application  of  the  evaluation  rules,  together  with  an  assessment  by  the 
Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The  ATREMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  already  provided  the  CONT  Committee  with 
reports  on  socio-economic  impact  of  completed  projects  and  contributions  of 
Member  states  and  industry.  The  Commission  assessment  of  the  reports  is 
undergoing. The EC will provide CONT with its assessment on the reports done by 
the JU. Also, the EC will report to the EP on the final evaluation of the ARTEMIS 
and ENIAC as foreseen in the Council Regulation by end of 2017. 

302. 

(ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking, § 24 - 2013/PAR/0553) The Parliament (calls on the 
ARTEMIS  Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  on  the 
social-economic  benefits  of  the  already  completed  projects;)  calls  for  that  report  to 
be  submitted  to  the  discharge  authority  together  with  an  assessment  by  the 
Commission. 

303. 

Commission's response: 

The  ATREMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  already  provided  the  CONT  Committee  with 
reports  on  socio-economic  impact  of  completed  projects  and  contributions  of 
Member  states  and  industry.  The  Commission  assessment  of  the  reports  is 
undergoing. The EC will provide CONT with its assessment on the reports done by 
the JU. Also, the EC will report to the EP on the final evaluation of the ARTEMIS 
and ENIAC as foreseen in the Council Regulation by end of 2017. 

(ENIAC  Joint  Undertaking,  §  8  -  2013/PAR/0554)  The  Parliament    is  concerned 
that  there  is  limited  information  available  regarding  the  evaluation  of  the  Member 
States'  and  AENEAS'  contributions  corresponding  to  the  actual  level  of  Union 
payments;  in  line  with  the  information  received,  the  contribution  of  the  Member 
States is under the level of 1,8 as requested by the Joint Undertaking’s statute; calls 
on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority concerning the 
contributions of all members other than the Commission, including the application of 
the evaluation rules, together with an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The  ATREMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  already  provided  the  CONT  Committee  with 
reports  on  socio-economic  impact  of  completed  projects  and  contributions  of 
Member  states  and  industry.  The  Commission  assessment  of  the  reports  is 
undergoing. The EC will provide CONT with its assessment on the reports done by 
the JU. Also, the EC will report to the EP on the final evaluation of the ARTEMIS 
and ENIAC as foreseen in the Council Regulation by end of 2017. 

304. 

(ENIAC  Joint  Undertaking,  §  9  -  2013/PAR/0555)  The  Parliament  (calls  on  the 
Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  on  the  social-

136 

 
305. 

economic  benefits  of  the  already  completed  projects;)  calls  for  that  report  to  be 
submitted to the discharge authority together with an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The  ATREMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  already  provided  the  CONT  Committee  with 
reports  on  socio-economic  impact  of  completed  projects  and  contributions  of 
Member  states  and  industry.  The  Commission  assessment  of  the  reports  is 
undergoing. The EC will provide CONT with its assessment on the reports done by 
the JU. Also, the EC will report to the EP on the final evaluation of the ARTEMIS 
and ENIAC as foreseen in the Council Regulation by end of 2017. 

(Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, § 5 - 2013/PAR/0556) The Parliament acknowledges 
from the Court's report that in accordance with the Joint Undertaking's establishing 
regulation,  the  members  of  the  Joint  Undertaking  other  than  the  Commission  shall 
contribute  resources  of  at  least  EUR  600  000  000,  including  their  contributions  to 
cover running costs; points out that at the time of the Court's audit , the contribution 
committed by the Union amounted to EUR 713 000 000 while the resources from the 
members amounted to EUR 409 000 000; calls on the Joint Undertaking to submit a 
report to the discharge authority concerning the contributions of all members, other 
than the Commission, including the application of the evaluation rules, together with 
an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

A  detailed  report  on  the  contributions  of  all  members  is  currently  under 
preparation by the Clean Sky 2 JU. It will be submitted to the discharge authority 
after the assessment of the Commission. 

306. 

(Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, § 23 - 2013/PAR/0557) The Parliament (calls on the 
Clean  Sky  Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  on  the 
social-economic  benefits  of  the  already  completed  projects;)  calls  for  that  report  to 
be  submitted  to  the  discharge  authority  together  with  an  assessment  by  the 
Commission. 

Commission's response: 

A  report  will  be  prepared  by  the  Clean  Sky  2  JU  and  will  be  assessed  by  the 
Commission before submitting it to the Parliament in autumn.  

This report will be based on the results of the Technology Evaluator work package 
of Clean Sky, which is an unique tool to assess the achievements of the Clean Sky 
objectives throughout the programme 

307. 

(Clean  Sky  Joint  Undertaking,  §  28  -  2013/PAR/0558)  The  Parliament  invites  the 
Commission to work with both joint undertakings (Clean Sky and SESAR) in order 
to  improve  the  communication  and  reinforce  synergies  and  complementarities, 
ensuring at the same time that there is no risk of overlapping between the activities of 
the two joint undertakings in question. 

Commission's response: 

Council Regulation No 558/2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking 
defines the liaising with SESAR as one of the tasks of the Joint Undertaking. The 
Commission is closely supporting this task and coordinating the relevant services 
to  avoid  duplication  and  enhance  complementarities.  An  interface  between  both 
Joint Undertakings has been set up in order to regularly identify and monitor the 
activities with potential overlaps and improve the communication. A Memorandum 

137 

 
of  Understanding  between  both  JUs  is  under  preparation  proposing  a  reinforced 
cooperation  in  several  areas  of  activities  of  the  two  JUs  to  achieve  ensure 
synergies. 

308. 

(Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking,  §  5  -  2013/PAR/0559)  The 
Parliament  calls  on  the  Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge 
authority  concerning  the  contributions  of  all  members  other  than  the  Commission, 
including  the  application  of  the  methodology  for  assessing,  together  with  an 
assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The  report  related  to  an  Independent  Assessment  of  the  In-Kind  Contributions, 
is  publicly  available  at 
covering  all  non-Commission 
http://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/FCH%2520assessment%2520%2520in
%2520kind_final%2520report_signed%252012032015_full%2520set.pdf 

contributions, 

The document also contains a description of the methodology applied. 

The  Commission  has  co-adopted  the  Analysis  and  assessment  of  the  FCH  2  JU 
Annual Activity Report 2014 by the Governing Board. 

A detailed report will be made available to the Parliament in due course as part of 
the follow up to the discharge 2013. 

309. 

(Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking,  §  15  -  2013/PAR/0560)  The 
Parliament  (calls  on  the  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a 
report  to  the  discharge  authority  on  the  social-economic  benefits  of  the  already 
completed  projects;)  calls  for  that  report  to  be  submitted  to  the  discharge  authority 
together with an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

A detailed report will be made available to the Parliament in due course as part of 
the follow up to the discharge 2013. 

310. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  the  implementation  of  the  Joint  Technology  Initiative  on 
Innovative  Medicine,  §  10  -  2013/PAR/0561)  The  Parliament    calls  on  the  Joint 
Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  concerning  the 
contributions of all members other than the Commission including the application of 
the methodology for evaluating in-kind contributions, together with an assessment by 
the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

A  detailed  report  will  be  prepared  by  the  Innovative  Medicines  Initiative  Joint 
Undertaking, assessed by the Commission, and provided to the discharge authority. 

311. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  the  implementation  of  the  Joint  Technology  Initiative  on 
Innovative  Medicines,  §  23  -  2013/PAR/0562)  The  Parliament  (calls  on  the  Joint 
Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative 
Medicines  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  on  the  social-economic 
benefits of the already completed projects;) calls for that report to be submitted to the 
discharge authority together with an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

A report will be prepared by the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking, 
assessed by the Commission, and provided to the discharge authority. 

138 

 
312. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  and  the  Development  of  Fusion  Energy,  §  9  - 
2013/PAR/0563) The Parliament asks the Commission and the Director of the Joint 
Undertaking  for  ITER  to  present  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  on  the  official 
position  of  all  stakeholders  concerning  their  future  commitments  on  the  ITER 
project. 

Commission's response: 

All Parties have always assumed their financial commitments to the budget of the 
ITER Organization, showing their commitment to the project. 

At  political  level,  a  Ministerial  level  meeting  of  the  ITER  Council  took  place  in 
September 2013. At this meeting, all the ITER Parties confirmed their commitment 
and support to the project at high political level. 

The  support  of  all  ITER  Parties  has  been  reiterated  during  these  last  years,  in 
particular as from 2013, when following an Independent Assessment of the ITER 
Organization (IO) several actions have been taken to  redress the  project path.  In 
this  respect,  the  Commission  has  no  indications  that  any  ITER  Party  considers 
withdrawing from the project. 

313. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  and  the  development  of  fusion  energy,  §  12  - 
2013/PAR/0564) The Parliament  calls on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to 
the  discharge  authority  concerning  the  contributions  of  all  members  other  than  the 
Commission, 
in-kind 
contributions, together with an assessment by the Commission. 

the  application  of  the  evaluation  rules  for 

including 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  take  the  requested  action  and  will  assess  the  information 
provided  by the  Joint Undertaking in the  annual  Progress  report that  Fusion  for 
Energy has to submit to the Council of the EU and the EP at the end of the year, in 
accordance with the 2010 conclusion of the Council. 

The Members of the Joint Undertaking of Fusion for Energy are the EU Member 
States, Switzerland and Euratom. There are no members from the industry. 

The  percentage  of  the  Euratom  contribution  to  Fusion  for  Energy  revenue  is 
81.3%. The other members contributes as follows: 

• 

The ITER Host State contribution for 18% of the revenue (France) 

The Membership contribution for 0.7% of the revenue, from all members of 

• 
the Joint Undertaking except Euratom. 

There  are  no  in-kind  contributions  to  Fusion  for  Energy,  except  the  premises 
hosting the Joint Undertaking which is provided by the Host Country (Spain). This 
contribution is not evaluated. 

314. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  and  the  development  of  fusion  energy,  §  14  - 
2013/PAR/0565) The Parliament  calls on the Joint Undertaking to submit in a due 
term  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  concerning  the  actual  level  of  project 
implementation, potential risks and future development of the project, together with 
an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will take the requested action and will assess the actual level of 
project  implementation,  potential  risks  and  future  development  of  the  project,  on 
the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  the  Joint  Undertaking  in  the  annual 

139 

 
Progress report that Fusion for Energy has to submit to the Council of the EU and 
the  EP  at  the  end  of  the  year,  in  accordance  with  the  2010  conclusion  of  the 
Council. 

In its conclusion of 2010, the Council of the EU requested Fusion for Energy to 
submit  to  the  Council  an  annual  progress  report,  together  with  an  assessment  of 
the progress of the project and of the activities of the Joint Undertaking prepared 
by independent experts. These two reports that are submitted to the Council and to 
the European Parliament at the end of every year, give information on the actual 
level  of  the  project  implementation,  the  progress  on  the  execution  of  the  project 
and its cost, potential risks and future developments.  

Fusion for Energy will address this request of the Parliament's Resolution of the 
2013 discharge in the progress report that it will submit to the Council of the EU 
and the Parliament at the end of this year. 

315. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  and  the  Development  of  Fusion  Energy,  §  17  - 
2013/PAR/0566) The Parliament asks the Commission and the Director of the Joint 
Undertaking to present a report to the discharge authority detailing the reasons of the 
delay on the implementation of the staff regulations and on the situation concerning 
the working conditions. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will take the requested action and address this question from the 
Parliament on the basis of the report that Fusion for Energy has to submit to the 
discharge authority as follow-up report to the 2013 Discharge. 

SITUATION CONCERNING WORKING CONDITIONS 

In  March  2015,  the  Spanish  Government  offered  new  premises  to  F4E  in  a 
building  to  be  shared  with  the  Comisión  Nacional  de  los  Mercados  y  la 
Competencia (CNMC). This offer was welcomed by F4E and a detailed inspection 
and  expert  analysis  was  performed.  The  result  of  this  analysis  showed  that  there 
are  still  critical  concerns  that  need  to  be  addressed  by  the  Host  State  before  the 
proposal can fully suit F4E needs.  

DELAY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS 

On  the  side  of  Fusion  for  Energy,  the  necessary  steps  enabling  the  adoption  of 
implementing  rules  have  been  taken,  in  line  with  Article  110  of  the  Staff 
Regulations  and  the  Commission  Guidelines  on  the  implementation  of  Article 
110(2) of the Staff Regulations.  

For  a  limited  number  of  rules,  there  are  several  scenarios  explaining  the  delay, 
which are not attributable to Fusion for Energy: 

a)  The  Fusion  for  energy  rules  cannot  be  completed  until  the  model  decisions 
applying to agencies has been adopted by the European Commission.  

b) The Commission feedback is awaited on implementing rules for which an opt-
out  or  a  partial  opt-out  was  requested.  Without  the  position  of  the  European 
Commission,  the  Governing  Board  of  Fusion  for  Energy  cannot  proceed  further 
(this would be contrary to Article 110 of the Staff Regulations). 

316. 

(Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  and  the  Development  of  Fusion  Energy,  §  29  - 
2013/PAR/0567)  The  Parliament  notes  that  the  Joint  Undertaking  has  not  amended 
its  financial  rules  in  order  to  reflect  the  changes  brought  by  the  new  Financial 
Regulation  and  the  framework  financial  regulation  for  the  bodies    referred  to  in 

140 

 
Article  208  of  the  new  Financial  Regulation;  acknowledges  from  the  Joint 
Undertaking  that  it  assessed  the  changes  and  proposed  the  amendments  to  its 
Governing  Board;  notes  that  in  accordance  with  Article  5  of  Council  Decision 
2007/198/Euratom, the Commission is to issue an opinion prior to submission of the 
final version of the financial rules to the Joint Undertaking’s Governing Board; calls 
on the Commission and the Joint Undertaking to remedy this issue without delay. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will take the requested action together with Fusion for Energy to 
address this issue. 

The  F4E  financial  rules  (F4E  FR)  have  to  be  amended  to  reflect  the  changes 
introduced by the revised Framework financial regulation (FFR) of 30 September 
2013  and  the  General  financial  regulation  (GFR)  of  25  October  2012,  in 
accordance with the observations made by the Court of Auditors. 

The F4E FR and its Implementing Rules (IR) were submitted to the Commission 
by F4E on 25/07/2014 and since then, discussions are on-going. The Commission 
can only provide a global opinion on the F4E FR and the IR once the provisions of 
the procurement rules of the new Directive 2014/24/EU of 26 February 2014 are 
transposed to the GFR and its IR and to the FFR and its IR.  

In  order  not  to  further  delay  the  amendment  of  the  F4E  FR/IR,  the  Governing 
Board  of  F4E  (GB),  agreed  to  follow  a  two-step  procedure  in  this  file  at  its  last 
meeting of June 2015:  

a) F4E and the Commission should aim to finalise the discussions on F4E FR as 
soon as possible (without the procurement chapter).  

b)  Once  the  new  Commission  procurement  rules  are  available,  F4E  and  the 
Commission  should  start  discussions  with  the  aim  of  presenting  a  new 
procurement chapter in spring 2016. 

317. 

(SESAR  Joint  Undertaking,  §  7  -  2013/PAR/0568)  The  Parliament    calls  on  the 
Joint  Undertaking  to  submit  a  report  to  the  discharge  authority  concerning  the 
contributions of all members other than the Commission, including the application of 
the  evaluation  rules  for  in-kind  contributions,  together  with  an  assessment  by  the 
Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The  SESAR  Joint  Undertaking  will  prepare  an  overview  detailing 
the 
contributions of  all  members  other than the  Commission. This  overview will also 
explain how the in-kind contributions are evaluated. The Commission will assess 
the Joint Undertaking's report. The report with the Commission's assessment will 
be provided to the Discharge Authority by 31 December 2015. 

318. 

(SESAR Joint Undertaking, § 16 - 2013/PAR/0569) The Parliament believes, where 
appropriate,  that  links  between  the  SESAR  Joint  Undertaking  and  the  Clean  Sky 
Joint Undertaking should be strengthened; invites the Commission to work with both 
joint  undertakings  in  order  to  improve  the  communication  and  reinforce  synergies 
and complementarities, ensuring at the same time that there is no risk of overlapping 
between the activities of the two joint undertakings in question. 

Commission's response: 

1.  Presently,  SESAR  and  Clean  Sky  2  Joint  Undertakings  have  a  continuous 
working  relation  consisting  of  fruitful  exchanges  on  the  approaches  between  the 

141 

 
two Joint Undertakings regarding the legal and financial aspects of SESAR 2020 
(SESAR  Joint  Undertaking's  work  programme  for  2014-2020).  In  the  technical 
domain,  there  have  already  been  initial  exchanges  established.  An  interface 
between both Joint Undertakings has been set up in order to regularly identify and 
monitor the activities with potential overlaps and improve the communication. 

2. As a further step, a Memorandum of Understanding between both JUs is under 
preparation proposing a reinforced cooperation in several areas of activities of the 
two  JUs  to  achieve  ensure  synergies.  The  SESAR  Joint  Undertaking  and  the 
Commission  will  work  together  to  strengthen  even  more  this  relationship.  This 
topic  has,  in  fact,  been  included  in  the  SESAR  2020  multi-annual  work 
programme and therefore will be followed-up by the Commission. 

319. 

(SESAR  Joint  Undertaking,  §  18  -  2013/PAR/0570)  The  Parliament  (calls  on  the 
SESAR Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority on the social-
economic  benefits  of  the  already  completed  projects;)  calls  for  that  report  to  be 
submitted to the discharge authority together with an assessment by the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

In March 2015, the SESAR Joint Undertaking has tasked the Boston Consulting 
Group  to  perform  a  study  regarding  the  value  of  SESAR  Research  and 
Development. The objectives were to assess the return on investment made in R&D 
by connecting it to the first deployment of SESAR Solutions in the framework of 
the  Pilot  Common  Project.  This  study  started  from  all  Operational  Improvement 
steps related to the Pilot Common Projects which were part of SESAR 1 R&D and 
provided  an  overview  of  the  return  on  investment  of  the  Pilot  Common  Project. 
The result of the study provides valuable inputs on the value of SESAR Research 
and Development from a public Return on Investment perspective which could be 
used  in  the  elaboration  of  the  report  on  social-economic  benefits  required  by  the 
European Parliament.  

The  Commission  will  assess  the  Joint  Undertaking's  report.  The  report  with  the 
Commission's assessment will be provided to the Discharge Authority by December 
2015. 

142