COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL on the follow-up to 2014 discharge - Replies to requests from the European Parliament
Date: 2016-10-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU control, EU expenditure, audit, budgetary control, budgetary discharge, financial control, financial year, general budget (EU), management audit

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.10.2016  SWD(2016) 338 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 2014 discharge - Replies to requests from the European Parliament {COM(2016) 674 final} {SWD(2016) 339 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 

European Parliament resolutions on 2014 discharge ................................................................. 6 

Commission commitments with regard to discharge priorities ........................................ 6 

Strategy and mission: continuity and innovation .............................................................. 7 

Follow-up of the 2013 Commission´s discharge ............................................................ 12 

Position of the Court: The Court's statement of assurance ............................................. 14 

General budgetary and financial management ................................................................ 17 

Budgetary performance ................................................................................................... 19 

Evaluation and analysis of the main results of 2014 Union budget ................................ 33 

Revenue  .......................................................................................................................... 34 

Competitiveness for growth and jobs ............................................................................. 37 

Economic, social and territorial cohesion ....................................................................... 43 

Natural resources ............................................................................................................ 67 

Global Europe ................................................................................................................. 78 

Administration ................................................................................................................ 82 

Others 

 .......................................................................................................................... 89 

General results and policy recommendations ................................................................. 96 

Foreign Affairs Committee's opinions ............................................................................ 97 

Development and Cooperation Committee's opinions .................................................... 99 

Employment and Social Affairs Committee's opinions .................................................. 99 

Transport and Tourism Committee's opinions .............................................................. 104 

Regional Development Committee's opinions .............................................................. 109 

Agriculture and Rural Development Committee's opinions ......................................... 115 

Fisheries Committee's opinions .................................................................................... 119 

Culture and Education Committee's opinions ............................................................... 121 

Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee's opinions .................................. 122 

Gender issues Committee's opinions ............................................................................ 123 

Part I – Special Report No 18/2014 of the Court of Auditors entitled "EuropeAid’s 

evaluation and results-oriented monitoring systems" ..................................... 125 

2 

 
 
 
Part III – Special Report No 23/2014 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Errors in rural 
development spending: what are the causes and how are they being 
addressed?" ..................................................................................................... 129 

Part IV – Special Report No 24/2014 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Is EU support 

for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural 
disasters well managed?" ................................................................................ 132 

Part V – Special Report No 1/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Inland Waterway 
Transport in Europe: No significant improvements in modal share and 
navigability conditions since 2001" ................................................................ 133 

Part VI – Special Report No 2/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "EU-funding of 

Urban Waste Water Treatment plants in Danube river basin: further efforts 
needed in helping Member States to achieve EU waste water policy objectives"
 ........................................................................................................................ 135 

Part VII – Special Report No 3/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "EU Youth 

Guarantee: first steps taken but implementation risks ahead" ........................ 136 

Part VIII – Special Report No 4/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Technical 
assistance: what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural 
development?" ................................................................................................ 139 

Part IX – Special Report No 5/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Are financial 

instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development area?" 140 

Part X – Special Report No 6/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The integrity and 

implementation of the EU ETS" ..................................................................... 143 

Part XI – Special Report No 7/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The EU police 

mission in Afghanistan: mixed results" .......................................................... 144 

Part XIII – Special Report No 9/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "EU support for 

the fight against torture and the abolition of the death penalty" ..................... 147 

Part XIV – Special Report No 10/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Efforts to 

address problems with public procurement in EU cohesion expenditure should 
be intensified" ................................................................................................. 151 

Part XV – Special Report No 11/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Are the 

Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?" ....... 151 

Part XVI – Special Report No 12/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The EU 

priority of promoting a knowledge-based rural economy has been affected by 
poor management of knowledge-transfer and advisory measures" ................ 157 

Part XVII – Special Report No 13/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "EU Support 

to timber-producing countries under the FLEGT Action Plan" ..................... 160 

Part XVIII – Special Report No 14/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The ACP 

Investment Facility: does it provide added-value?" ....................................... 161 

Part XIX – Special Report No 15/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "EU Energy 

Facility support for renewable energy in East Africa" ................................... 162 

3 

 
 
Part XX – Special Report No 16/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Improving the 

security of energy supply by developing the internal energy market: more 
efforts needed" ................................................................................................ 163 

Part XXI – Special Report No 17/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Commission's 
support of youth action teams: redirection of ESF funding achieved, but 
insufficient focus on results" .......................................................................... 163 

Part XXII – Special Report No 20/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The cost-
effectiveness of EU Rural Development support for non-productive 
investments in agriculture" ............................................................................. 164 

European External Action Service ................................................................................ 166 

European Council and Council ..................................................................................... 169 

Performance, financial management and control of EU agencies ................................ 169 

Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 172 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
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 2014 discharge. It presents in 
detail the answers to 350 specific requests made by the European Parliament in its Resolution 
forming an integral part of its Decisions on the 2014 Discharge1. 

1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/cont/discharge-2014.html 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTIONS ON 2014 DISCHARGE 

Commission commitments with regard to discharge priorities 

(§ 4 - 2014/PAR/0238) The European Parliament calls again on the Commission to 
submit  a  communication  to  the  Parliament  in  time  for  the  mid-term  review  of  the 
MFF  with  proposals  on  how  the  new  and  potential  challenges  requiring  Union 
budgetary support could be met and explaining how it will in future reconcile long-
term  political  objectives  (such  as  the  Europe  2020  Strategy)  with  the  future,  post-
2020, MFF. 

Commission's response: 

The  mid-term  review  of  the  MFF  adopted  on  14  September  2016  examines  the 
functioning of the current MFF, and includes proposals to improve the delivery on 
EU priorities, including on its ability to respond to the major challenges facing the 
EU.  

The proposals for the post-2020 MFF are due before 1 January 2018. 

(§  5  and  §  134  -  2014/PAR/0239)  The  European  Parliament  reminds  the 
Commission  that  the  Court  of  Auditors  ("the  Court")  has  been  asking  for  the 
establishment  of  a  long-term  cash  flow  plan  for  several  years;  calls  on  the 
Commission to submit such a plan before the end of 2016. 

Commission's response: 

In  its  communication  on  the  mid-term  review  of  the  MFF,  the  Commission  has 
presented  a  payment  forecast  assessing  the  sustainability  of  the  current  ceilings 
and including the estimate of de-commitments and the evolution of the RAL until 
the end of the current MFF. 

(§ 6 - 2014/PAR/0240) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to revise 
the  Code  of  Conduct  for  Commissioners  in  light  of  demands  made  in  the  2014 
Commission  discharge  resolution  in  time  for  the  2015  Commission  discharge 
procedure. 

Commission's response: 

Please  refer  to  the  replies  provided  to  recommendations  2014/PAR/389-391-392-
578. 

(§ 7 - 2014/PAR/0241) The European Parliament urges the Commission not to adopt 
the new framework for Commission expert groups until a meeting of Vice-President 
Timmermans,  the  European  Ombudsman,  key  Members  of  Parliament  and  civil 
society has taken place to discuss the final issues concerning both the contents of the 
new horizontal rules and their implementation. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

First  Vice-President  Timmermans  has  engaged  both  in  meetings  and  in  writing 
with  several  Members  of  the  Parliament,  the  Ombudsman  and  civil  society 
organisations, ahead of the adoption of the new framework for Commission expert 
groups (C(2016) 3300 and 3301). 

5. 

(§ 8 - 2014/PAR/0242) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to instruct 
its  directorates  general  to  publish  all  country  specific  recommendations  they  have 
issued  in  the  context  of  the  European  semester  in  their  respective  annual  activity 
reports. 

Commission's response: 

The  Directorates-General  of  the  Commission  do  not  individually  issue  country-
specific recommendations. The recommendations are proposed by the Commission 
and  then  formally  adopted  by  the  Council  after  discussion  in  the  relevant 
committees  and  Council  formations.  Detailed  and  comprehensive  reporting  on 
their  implementation  takes  place  in  the  context  of  the  country  reports  of  the 
European Semester, which are produced annually. Eurostat also publishes yearly 
updates  of  the  developments  regarding  the  main  indicators  of  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy. Where relevant, a Directorate General reports in its annual activity report 
on  its  contribution  to  the  European  Semester,  including  on  how  its  activities 
contribute  to  the  annual  process  leading  to  country-specific  recommendations  to 
Member  States.  Distinction  should  be  made  between  the  reporting  on  the 
indicators  measuring  progress  on  the  Europe  2020  strategy  in  these  reports  and 
the  reporting  in  the  annual  activity  reports  of  the  DGs  presenting  the  results  of 
actions  taken  by  the  DG  by  reference  to  the  objectives  set  in  the  management 
plans. The annual activity reports are not intended to provide a comprehensive and 
detailed reporting on the implementation of country-specific recommendations. 

Strategy and mission: continuity and innovation 

(§  24  -  2014/PAR/0243)  The  European  Parliament  recalls  that  in  its  resolutions 
accompanying  the  discharge  decisions,  the  Parliament  has  since  2013  asked  the 
Commission  to  focus  its  implementation  of  Article  318  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – concerning its evaluation report – on 
the  implementation  of  the  Union´s  ten-year  growth  and  jobs  strategy  and  its  real 
performance  and  results  (reference  made  to  European  Parliament  Resolution  of  17 
April 2013 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on Discharge 
in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the Union for the financial 
year 2011, section III Commission and executive agencies (OJ L 308, 16.11.2013, p. 
27),  paragraph  328;  European  Parliament  Resolution  of  3  April  2014  concerning 
discharge for the financial year 2012 (OJ L 266, 5.9.2014, p. 32) paragraphs 314 and 
315; European Parliament Resolution of 29 April 2015 concerning discharge for the 
financial year 2013 (OJ L 255, 30.9.2015, p. 27) paragraph 305). 

6. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
7. 

Commission's response: 

Section 1 of the new Annual Management and Performance Report corresponds to 
the  former  Article  318  Evaluation  Report  required  by  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  The  new  Report  presents  the  links 
with the Europe 2020 Strategy: 1) for the 2014-2020 programmes, while they are 
still  in  an  early  stage  of  implementation  and  it  is  too  early  for  them  to  have 
produced  results,  the  report  presents  the  links  between  these  programmes' 
objectives  and  the  Europe  2020  Strategy;  2)  for  the  2007-2013  programmes,  the 
text on the achievements under the budget headings most directly linked to Europe 
2020  (1A,  1B,  and  2)  is  structured  around  the  Europe  2020  priorities  of  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  showing  to  the  extent  possible the  contribution 
of  the  EU  budget  to  the  Strategy’s objectives. As  indicated  in  the  2013  edition  of 
the Article 318 Evaluation Report, the Europe 2020 Strategy had not been adopted 
when  the  2007-2013  MFF  programmes  were  designed  and  their  monitoring, 
reporting  and  evaluation  arrangements  were  not  therefore  intended  to  provide  a 
link between the achievements of the programmes and those of the Strategy. 

(§ 36 - 2014/PAR/0244) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to make 
fuller use of the scope afforded by existing legislation with regard to the performance 
reserve  so  as  genuinely  to  create  a  financial  incentive  to  improve  financial 
management  in  practice;  calls  furthermore  for  greater  use  to  be  made  of  the 
performance reserve as an instrument to increase the element which is conditional on 
performance when the legislation is next revised (reference made to point 3.65 of the 
Court's annual report for 2014). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. 

The Commission will make a full use of the possibilities offered by the legal basis 
concerning the performance reserve. It considers that the present legal framework 
already  gives  sufficient  incentive  to  Member  States  to  enhance  performance,  the 
performance reserve being only one of the elements supporting an increased focus 
on  results.  The  performance  framework  provides  a  mechanism  for  monitoring 
whether the implementation of the priorities is on track. The performance reserve 
provides  an  incentive  to  achieve  the  milestones,  which  necessarily  are  the 
precondition for obtaining the intended results. 

The assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current framework will be 
carried out for the preparation of the post 2020 legislation. While the Commission 
is not in a position to commit itself to make specific proposals to the legislator for 
the  next  period  at  that  stage,  it  will  consider  if  further  strengthening  of  the 
performance  reserve  rules  is  needed  for  achieving  the  most  effective  use  of  EU 
Funds. 

8. 

(§ 38 (a) - 2014/PAR/0245) The European Parliament requests that the Commission 
consider making proposals with a view to: 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
(a) better aligning the MFF to the Europe 2020 strategy and proposing its revision if 
needed to better match the Europe 2020 Strategy. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  refers  to  the  letter  of  Vice-President  Georgieva  to  the  2014 
discharge rapporteur, Ms Dlabajova, of 11 March 2016 (cf. par 1a), which points 
to  efforts  already  done  to  ensure  coherence  between  policy  objectives  and  the 
financial framework for the 2014-2020 MFF period and to the opportunity offered 
with the mid-term revision of the current MFF for a discussion at political level on 
how  best  to  balance  budgetary  means  with  political  priorities.  The  Commission 
also refers to its earlier replies to chapter 3 (cf. par 3.8 and recommendation 1) of 
the 2014 Court of Auditor's annual report. 

9. 

(§ 38 (b) - 2014/PAR/0246) The European Parliament requests that the Commission 
consider making proposals with a view to: 

(b)  reflecting  the  high-level  political  goals  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  in  Union-
level objectives. 

Commission's response: 

Common reply to recommendations 2014/PAR/0246 and 0247. 

The Commission refers to the letter of VP Georgieva to Ms Dlabajova of 11 March 
2016  (cf.  par  1b),  which  indicates  the  actions  launched  to  strengthen  the  link 
between the actions of the European and Structural Investment Funds (ESIF) and 
the  Europe  2020  strategy.  It  equally  provides  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the 
reporting modalities put in place thereto. 

10. 

(§ 38 (c) - 2014/PAR/0247) The European Parliament requests that the Commission 
consider making proposals with a view to: 

(c)  making  sure  that  partnership  agreements  and  programmes  translate  the  Union-
level objectives into thematic objectives that can be linked to operational objectives 
at  the  level  of  the  Member  States  or  in  the  programmes  directly  managed  by  the 
Commission. 

Commission's response: 

Please refer to the reply to recommendation 2014/PAR/0246. 

11. 

(§  39  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0248)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
propose to the legislator that: 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(a)  Member  States  include  in  their  partnership  agreements  and  programmes  a 
statement  of  the  quantifiable  results  that  the  funding  is  intended  to  achieve,  where 
appropriate. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. 

Given that the 2014-2020 partnership agreements and programmes have only just 
been  put  in  place,  it  would  be  premature  to  propose  changes  before  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  new  performance  related  provisions  can  be  fully  assessed. 
The assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current framework will be 
carried out for the preparation of the post 2020 multiannual financial framework 
(MFF). 

While  the  Commission  is  not  in  a  position  to  commit  itself  to  make  specific 
proposals to the legislator for the next MFF, it will take into account the Court's 
and Parliament’s suggestions, together with the results of the studies which will be 
carried  out  examining  the  effectiveness  of  the  different  mechanisms  for 
strengthening  the  focus  on  results  in  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation,  with  a 
view  to  preparing  evidence-based  proposals  for  post  2020  to  achieve  the  most 
effective use of EU Funds. 

12. 

(§  39  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0249)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
propose to the legislator that: 

(b)  all  partnership  agreements  and  programmes  include  common  results  indicators, 
where possible shared by different funds, designed to monitor progress at the local, 
Member-State and Union level. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. 

Where  common  output  indicators  can  be  used  (i.e.  where  they  are  relevant)  the 
regulation in force requires that they are used and the Commission has insisted on 
this  in  the  negotiations.  The  Commission  sees  only  marginal  possibilities  for 
common indicators across the other funds because of the different missions of the 
funds and the different types of investment they support. 

As regards the European Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), a common set of 
context,  result  and  output  indicators  apply  for  all  programmes  (see  Annex  IV 
regulation (EU) No 808/2014). 

Given that the 2014-2020 partnership agreements and programmes have only just 
been  put  in  place,  it  would  be  premature  to  propose  changes  before  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  new  performance-related  provisions  can  be  fully  assessed. 
The assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current framework will be 
carried out for the preparation of the post 2020 multiannual financial framework 
(MFF). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While  the  Commission  is  not  in  a  position  to  commit  itself  to  make  specific 
proposals  to  the  legislator  for  the  next  MFF,  it  will  take  into  account  the  Court' 
and Parliament’s suggestions, together with the results of the studies which will be 
carried  out  examining  the  effectiveness  of  the  different  mechanisms  for 
strengthening  the  focus  on  results  in  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation,  with  a 
view  to  preparing  evidence-based  proposals  for  post  2020  to  achieve  the  most 
effective use of EU Funds. 

13. 

(§  39  (c)  -  2014/PAR/0250)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
propose to the legislator that: 

(c) the performance framework be based as far as possible on these common results 
indicators. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. 

The Commission considers that the performance framework cannot solely be based 
on the result indicators because of the timing issue (results can only be assessed in 
some  cases  a  considerable  time  after  outputs)  and  because  of  the  influence  of 
external factors. 

The performance framework is the outcome of a legislative process and has been 
agreed by the co-legislators. Given that the 2014-2020 partnership agreements and 
programmes  have  only  just  been  put  in  place,  it  would  be  premature  to  propose 
changes  before  the  effective  implementation  of  the  new  performance  related 
provisions can be fully assessed. The assessment of the strengths and weaknesses 
of the current framework will be carried out for the preparation of the post 2020 
multiannual financial framework (MFF). 

While  the  Commission  is  not  in  a  position  to  commit  itself  to  make  specific 
proposals  to  the  legislator  for  the  next  MFF,  it  will  take  into  account  the  Court' 
and Parliament’s suggestions, together with the results of the studies which will be 
carried  out  examining  the  effectiveness  of  the  different  mechanisms  for 
strengthening  the  focus  on  results  in  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation,  with  a 
view  to  preparing  evidence-based  proposals  for  post  2020  to  achieve  the  most 
effective use of EU Funds. 

14. 

(§ 40 and § 43 (c) - 2014/PAR/0251) The European Parliament asks the Commission 
to  include  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 the Parliament. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  first  Annual  Management  and  Performance  Report  (covering  the  former 
Article  318  Evaluation  Report  under  its  Section  1)  provides  an  account  on  the 
progress  made  so  far  under  the  Investment  Plan  for  Europe.  The  Commission 
envisages continuing to report on the performance of the EU budget contribution 
to the EFSI in future editions of Management and Performance Report. Separate, 
more extensive, reporting on the performance of EFSI will be provided as foreseen 
by the evaluation and reporting provisions in the EFSI Regulation (e.g. in spring 
2016  the  Commission  submitted  its  first  Report  on  the  management  of  the 
guarantee fund of the EFSI in 2015 (Report on the management of the guarantee 
fund of the EFSI, adopted on 31 May 2016, COM(2016) 353 and Communication 
on  the  Investment  Plan  for  Europe,  adopted  on  1  June  2016,  COM(2016)  359). 
The Commission recalls that in line with these provisions EFSI is established as an 
EIB  facility  and  account,  and  that  the  EIB  shall  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council on EIB financing and investment operations covered 
by the EFSI Regulation. 

Follow-up of the 2013 Commission´s discharge 

15. 

(§  43  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0252)  The  European  Parliament  notes  with  concern  that 
implementation  of  the  following  recommendations  and  requirements  in  the  2013 
Commission discharge is still pending: 

(a)  a  sanction  system  if  Member  States  transmit  incorrect  programme  information 
and  declarations  and  in  the  case  of  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  same  recommendation  was  rejected  in  2013  discharge.  The  following 
justification was given at the time: 

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. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  has  already  at  its  disposal  and  makes  full  use  of  a  series  of 
preventive  and  corrective  measures  available  under  the  legal  framework  in  cases 
where  control  systems  are  partially  effective  or  ineffective:  net  financial 
corrections  that  protect  the  EU  budget,  and,  where  remedial  actions  are  not 
implemented, suspension/reduction of the payments to the Member State. 

16. 

(§  43  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0253)  The  European  Parliament  notes  with  concern  that 
implementation  of  the  following  recommendations  and  requirements  in  the  2013 
Commission discharge is still pending: 

(b)  publishing,  where  they  have  voluntarily  decided  to  present  them,  not  only  the 
national declarations but also the annual summaries and management declarations, as 
"confidential  documents"  where  applicable,  in  order  to  give  more  insight  into  and 
achieve  a  real  improvement  in  financial  management;  however  it  is  still  not  clear 
how effective these measures will be considering the differences in Member's State 
structures and the political accountability of the different national authorities. 

Commission's response: 

Annual  summaries  cannot  be  published  or  be  made  public  unless  prior 
authorisation  of  the  Member  States  concerned  has  been  obtained.  The  same 
applies to the management declarations which will be  submitted as from the new 
programming period. Any disclosure of the documents must comply with the rules 
laid down in the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and 
Commission  documents,  as  well  as  in  the  Framework  Agreement  on  relations 
between  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European  Commission  (L  304/47  - 
Annex II; forwarding of confidential information to Parliament, point 1.2.3). 

Given the fact that the management declarations will be submitted at the level of 
managing authorities, resulting thus in a high number of declarations it would not 
be  appropriate  to  systematically  translate  and  submit  the  declarations  to  the 
European  Parliament.  However,  the  EP  will  be  informed  on  the  results  of  the 
Commission's  assessment  of  the  assurance  reporting  provided  by  the  Member 
States, including management declarations, in the respective AAR each year. 

Concerning  the  national  declarations  it  is  exclusively  for  the  Member  States 
issuing the national declarations to decide whether they publish their declarations. 
The  current  national  declarations  issued  by  the  Netherlands,  Sweden  and 
Denmark  are  made  public  by  the  national  authorities  and  can  be  found  on  their 
respective websites. 

17. 

(§  44  - 2014/PAR/0254)  The European Parliament  notes with  concern that only  20 
recommendations  were 
implemented  fully,  26  recommendations  are  being 
implemented in most respects and 19 are being implemented in some respects out of 
65  of  the  Court's  recommendations  made  in  years  2011-2012;  calls  on  the 
Commission  to  adopt  Parliament's  recommendations  and  requirements  and  to 
continue implementing the Court's recommendations. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  committed  to  ensuring  that  recommendations  made  by  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Court  in  its  reports,  and  accepted  by  the 
Commission,  are  systematically  implemented  and  followed-up.  It  will  strive  to 
further shorten the delays with which these recommendations are implemented. 

18. 

(§ 45 and § 288  of Part XXIV – Special Report No 2/2016 of the Court of Auditors 
entitled "2014 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors' Special 
Reports" - 2014/PAR/0255) The European Parliament stresses that from the point of 
view of the Parliament it is unsatisfactory when adversarial procedures end with the 
Commission  and  the  Court  drawing  different  conclusions;  calls  therefore  on  both 
institutions to avoid such an outcome. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  always  willing  to  accept  the  Court's  audit  observations 
mentioned  in  its  Special  Reports,  when  they  are  based  on  facts  and  sound 
professional  judgment.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  will  follow  the  resulting 
recommendations. 

Furthermore,  the  conclusions  the  Court  draws  from  its  audits  have  to  be  fair, 
balanced and within the limits set by the legal framework. 

In order to overcome differences within the DAS exercises and also in response to 
similar  requests  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  previous 
the  Commission  discussed  specific 
discharge  procedures, 
methodological issues in order to find a joint position. An agreement was reached 
on  the  assessment  of  deficiencies  detected  in  public  procurement  procedures  and 
cross  compliance  requirements.  This  agreement  will  also  help  to  considerably 
narrow the gap between the Court's and the Commission's conclusions. 

the  Court  and 

19. 

(§ 46 - 2014/PAR/0256) The European Parliament requests an action plan from the 
Commission  with  deadlines  and  objectives  to  strengthen  the  prevention  of  these 
recurrent errors. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  assess  the  need  for  taking  further  action  to  strengthen  the 
prevention  of  the  recurrent  errors  identified.  Taking  in  consideration  that  within 
the new Financial Framework a number of measures have already been taken at 
legislative level to reduce the number of errors, the Commission will also have to 
assess  the  situation  under  those  new  rules  and  to  determine  if  complementary 
action has to be taken. 

Position of the Court: The Court's statement of assurance 

20. 

(§  52  -  2014/PAR/0257)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  if  the  corrective 
measures taken by the Member States and the Commission had not been applied to 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the payments  audited by the Court,  the overall estimated level of error would have 
been  5,5  %  rather  than  4,4  %;  urges  therefore  the  Commission,  authorities  in  the 
Member  States  or  independent  auditors  to  use  all  information  available  to  prevent, 
detect and correct possible errors. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission notes that this recommendation is also addressed to the Member 
States. 

The  Commission  is  continuously  taking  measures  to  ensure  that  all  available 
information is used to prevent, detect and correct possible errors. 

The Commission is already taking into account for its financial decisions and its 
audit work all available information. This will continue also in the future. 

shared  management 

through  guidance  and 

The Commission exercises further its supervisory role towards the Member States 
in 
corrective  measures 
(interruptions/suspensions or net financial corrections). For Cohesion policy, this 
role  will  be  strengthened  even  more  in  2014-2020  with  the  annual  closure  of 
accounts.  For  the  management  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  the  annual 
clearance  of  accounts  has  been  in  place  since  the  2007-2013  period.  Now  the 
assurance is further enhanced by the new role of Certification Bodies who provide 
independent audit opinion on legality and regularity of transactions in the Member 
States' annual accounts. 

21. 

(§ 58 - 2014/PAR/0258) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to revise 
the  method  for  calculating  the  corrective  capacity  in  time  for  the  2015  discharge 
procedure. 

Commission's response: 

In  the  2015  annual  management  and  performance  report  of  the  EU  budget  the 
Commission has reported on the estimated future corrections. These represent the 
amount  of  expenditure  in  breach  of  applicable  regulatory  and  contractual 
provisions, that the DG conservatively estimates it will identify and correct through 
controls  implemented  after  the  payment  is  authorised.  As  a  general  rule,  the 
estimates are based on the average amount of financial corrections and recoveries, 
and  adjusted  when  necessary  in  particular  to  neutralise  elements  which  are  no 
longer  valid  under  the  new  legal  framework  and  one-off  events.  For  2015,  the 
resulting  estimated  future  corrections  represent  between  1.5  %  and  1.9  %  of  the 
total relevant expenditure. 

22. 

(§  61  -  2014/PAR/0259)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  in 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States  to  assess  for  each  policy  domain  and  for  the 
Union budget as a whole, the level of error remaining after all corrective measures, 
taking into account the multi-annual nature of programmes. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
23. 

Commission's response: 

In  the  2015  annual  management  and  performance  report  of  the  EU  budget  the 
Commission  has  reported  for  the  first  time  on  the  estimated  amount  at  risk  at 
payment  for  the  2015  expenditure,  the  estimated  future  corrections  and  the 
resulting estimated amount at risk at closure per policy area and for the EU budget 
as a whole. 

The  amount  at  risk  at  closure  represents  the  Commission  management's  view  at 
the  end  of  the  financial  year  on  the  performance  of  the  controls  implemented 
before  payment  (preventative,  ex-ante)  and  after  payment  (corrective,  ex-post).  It 
appropriately reflects the fact that the control cycle is multiannual and that further 
corrective measures can be implemented until closure. 

For  some  programmes  (e.g.  EAFRD  and  ESIF)  financial  corrections  are  still 
possible even after the closure. In those cases, such corrections are considered to 
be inherently part of the estimated future corrections which will limit the amount 
at risk at closure. 

The  estimated  amount  at  risk  at  closure  after  implementation  of  all  corrective 
measures represents between 0.8 % and 1.3 % of total 2015-expenditure. Thus, the 
multiannual  corrective  mechanisms  will  adequately  protect  the  EU  budget  from 
expenditure in breach of law. 

(§ 62 - 2014/PAR/0260) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to apply 
strictly  Article  32(5)  of  the  new  Financial  Regulation  if  the  level  of  error  is 
persistently high, and consequently to identify the weaknesses in the control systems, 
analyse  the  costs  and  benefits  of  possible  corrective  measures  and  take  or  propose 
appropriate  action  in  terms  of  simplification,  improvement  of  control  systems  and 
redesign of programmes or delivery systems before the mid-term review of the 2014-
2020 programming period. 

Commission's response: 

Based on the lessons learnt regarding the weaknesses in the control systems of the 
previous  MFF,  the  Commission  reviewed  the  legislation  for  the  new  period  and 
made  proposals  with  the  aim  to  improving  the  control  systems  and  reducing 
further  the  level  of  the  error,  while  considering  appropriate  cost-benefit  ratio  of 
controls. Notwithstanding, not all of the Commission proposals have been retained 
by the legislator. 

The  Commission  will  carry  out  analyses  of  “areas  of  persistently  high  levels  of 
errors”  and  report  on  the  root  causes  and  on  measures  taken  to  address  them, 
while ensuring cost-effectiveness of controls. 

In this respect, the Commission is committed to continue to closely coordinate with 
the Member States and other entities entrusted with the implementation of the EU 
budget, to identify areas where concerted action is necessary or is considered likely 
to be beneficial. 

24. 

(§  69  -  2014/PAR/0261)  The  European  Parliament  requests  the  director  general  of 
DG  DEVCO  to  provide  a  more  risk  differentiated  assurance  in  his  annual  activity 

16 

 
 
 
report  and  to  subsequently  direct  more  of  their  control  resources  towards  areas 
covered by specific reservations. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

A  more  risk-differentiated  assurance  was  given  in  the  DG  DEVCO  2015  Annual 
Activity Report produced in March 2016. An action plan is being drawn up to take 
into account the specific areas for which a reservation was issued. 

General budgetary and financial management 

25. 

(§  74  -  2014/PAR/0262)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the  rules  and 
regulations be verified via a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) process to test their 
compatibility  and  compliance  with  Union  needs  and  targets,  as  in  the  case  of  cost 
reimbursement schemes, while the most typical example of errors include payments 
for ineligible costs (41 %) and errors in public procurement (27 %); notes that those 
errors can differ from a fraud or an act of deliberate deception to gain benefit. 

Commission's response: 

The  Financial  Regulation  966/2002  (article  30)  already  requires  that  an  ex-ante 
evaluation be carried out for all programmes or activities occasioning significant 
budget  expenditure.  The  requirements  of  the  Financial  Regulation  and  its 
delegated  acts  as  to  the  content  of  the  ex-ante  evaluation  cover  the  principles  of 
sound  financial  management  which  are  also  embedded  in  the  impact  assessment 
process for financial programmes and instruments. These rules and principles are 
set  out  in  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  which  include 
demonstrating the EU added value, assessing the cost-effectiveness (efficiency) of 
a  proposal,  and  setting  out  the  policy  and  management  objectives  to  be  achieved 
(such  as  measures  necessary  to  safeguard  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  in 
the field of fraud prevention, detection, investigation, reparation and sanctions). 

26. 

(§  78  -  2014/PAR/0263)  The  European  Parliament  expresses  concern  at  the  rate  of 
absorption of funds in Member States, which varies between 50 % and 92 %; calls on 
the  Commission  to  present  a  thorough  analysis  of  why  it  is  that  some  regions  still 
exhibit  low  rates  of  absorption  and  to  assess  specific  ways  of  remedying  the 
structural problems underlying those imbalances. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  put  in  place  in  November  2014  a  Task  Force  for  Better 
Implementation  (TFBI)  with  the  mandate  to  help  countries  with  significantly 
lower-than-average absorption rates to improve and accelerate implementation. 

The TFBI assessed the situation in each of the 8 Member States covered (BG, RO, 
CZ,  SK,  HU,  IT,  HR,  SI),  identified  the  bottlenecks  hampering  successful 
implementation,  defined  country  and  programme-specific  concrete  action  plans  - 
containing  quantifiable  milestones  and  implementation  targets  -  and  closely 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
monitored  their  implementation  through  missions  and  high-level  and  technical-
level  meetings  with  the  concerned  Member  States.  It  also  fostered  exchange  of 
experience and good practices among the participants and assisted Member States 
to  combine  the  maximisation  of  the  use  of  the  available  flexibility  provisions 
following  the  line  requested  by  the  European  Council  in  December  2014  and 
ensured a better spending of the funds. 

Among the actions undertaken to solve the challenges faced were the following: 

- identification of new projects that can be selected and implemented quickly; 

- identification of specific well-performing priorities that can absorb more than 

initially identified or well-implemented projects which can be expanded; 

- projects initially planned for the new 2014-2020 programmes where some parts 

can be implemented under the 2007-2013 programmes (phased projects); 

- number of programme or project modifications undertaken (and ongoing). 

In  this  context,  following  the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  in  December 
2014,  the  optimal  use  of  flexibility  provided  within  the  Closure  Guidelines  has 
played  an  important  role.  The  following  additional  measures  are  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  between  the  2007-2013 

and the next period or 

-  disbursement  of  funds  from  financial  instruments  to  final  recipients 
theoretically  till  closure  (in  practice  till  summer  2016  to  leave  time  for  the 
necessary check by the national authorities). 

The  impact  of  the  work  of  the  TFBI  is  quite  visible  as  the  rhythm  of 
implementation has further accelerated in 2015 and 2016 and as of July 2016, all 
Member States except 6 had reached or exceeded an overall implementation rate of 
90%  for  ERDF/CF  operational  programmes.  Malta,  Italy  and  Romania  are  still 
experiencing  some  delays  (implementation  rates  of  75%,  76%  and  77% 
respectively). While the situation for Croatia seems remains challenging (52%), the 
latter has however another year of implementation ahead. 

The Commission will  be able to fully appreciate the  impact the  TFBI had on the 
optimum use of the 2007-2013 allocations at closure. For the time being, it can be 
confirmed  that,  contrary  to  some  earlier  forecasts,  none  of  the  three  countries 
concerned by automatic rules leading to losing funds at the end of 2015 (Slovakia, 
Croatia and Romania) have lost ERDF or Cohesion Fund resources. 

In the medium-term, the Commission intends to ensure that full benefit is drawn 
from the work of the TFBI and will focus on delivering a more pro-active, hands-
on, targeted approach to advice and support for Member States, ensuring that the 
progress made, and the lessons learnt, help to provide a better implementation of 
funds in 2014-2020. 

18 

 
 
27. 

(§ 79 - 2014/PAR/0264) The European Parliament appreciates the innovative nature 
of the Court's 2014 annual report which included a results- and performance- based 
approach, assessing the application and orientation of Union budgetary interventions 
against  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  priorities;  considers  that  a  results-  and 
performance- based approach should be applied in the coming years, when drafting 
country-specific recommendations (CSRs) in the context of the European Semester. 

Commission's response: 

The  country-specific  recommendations  provide  policy  guidance  to  the  Member 
States that should be implemented within a 12-18 month time frame. They put the 
focus on what to achieve, instead of prescribing how to achieve it. The European 
Semester  is  a  politically  driven  and  focused  process,  underpinned  by  technical 
analysis.  It  is  predominantly  a  qualitative  exercise,  not  a  mathematical  one.  In 
particular,  the  country-specific  recommendations  are  about  quality,  not  quantity. 
Not  all  reforms  –  particularly  the  kind  of  wide-ranging  structural  reforms  in  the 
country-specific  recommendations  –  lend  themselves  to  quantitative  targets,  for 
example  in  areas  such  as  pension  reform  and  improving  the  quality  of  public 
administration.  That  said,  there  is  an  explicit  link  between  the  use  of  the  EU 
budget in the Member States and the promotion of policy reforms. In accordance 
with the legal framework covering the European Structural and Investment (ESI) 
Funds,  the  programmes  co-financed  by  ESI  Funds  for  the  period  2014-2020 
address  all  relevant  country-specific  recommendations  in  the  context  of  the 
European  Semester.  The  operational  programmes  have  been  closely aligned  with 
past country-specific recommendations and their approval has been subject to the 
implementation  of  a  number  of  reforms  (ex  ante  conditionalities)  in  order  to 
facilitate the use and effectiveness of ESI Funds. 

Budgetary performance 

28. 

(§ 83 - 2014/PAR/0265) The European Parliament recommends a continuation of the 
process  of  simplification  of  both  procedures  and  budgetary  content  leading  to  a 
reduction  of  excessive  administrative  burdens  and  to  limitations  on  gold-plating  in 
particular Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission continues to pursue further simplification and rationalisation in 
the  domain  of  financial  management,  control,  accounting  and  audit.  Simple, 
accessible  funding  is  among  the  core  objectives  of  the  Commission's  Budget 
Focused on Results Strategy. The Simplification Scoreboard has been re-launched 
- for the first time, simplification of budget implementation will be monitored not 
only at Commission level but also at Member State level. Work has also continued 
to  simplify  financial  rules  in  view  of  preparing  a  simplification  package  together 
with the Mid-Term Review of the MFF. 

A number of fund-specific simplification initiatives have also been launched such 
as  a  large-scale  simplification  of  the  CAP,  as  well  as  the  set  up  of  a  High-level 
Group monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Regulatory  simplification  is  also  one  of  the  cornerstones  of  the  Commission's 
better  regulation  agenda  and  the  REFIT  programme.  The  Interinstitutional 
Agreement  on  Better  Law-making  between  the  Commission,  EP  and  Council 
signed  and  entered  into  force  on  13  April  2016  calls  upon  the  Member  States  to 
communicate  clearly  to  their  public  when  they  adopt  measures  to  transpose  or 
implement Union legislation or to ensure the implementation of the Union budget. 

29. 

(§ 84 - 2014/PAR/0266) The European Parliament recommends an improvement in 
the  budgetary  procedure  in  terms  of  providing  performance  information  and 
management,  including  the  cost  effectiveness  of  controls,  declaration  of  assurance 
and discharge, project databases and communication. 

Commission's response: 

Lessons have been drawn and concrete developments have been made in 2016 to 
improve  the  reporting  on  performance  and  make  it  more  useful  for  decision-
makers. 

In particular, the structure and content of Programme Statements accompanying 
the  Draft  Budget  2017  were  modified  providing  more  focused  picture  on  the 
programmes'  progress.  They  include  both  ex-ante  and  ex-post  information  on 
programmes' performance including outputs and results and the progress toward 
their targets. In addition to the performance information required by the Financial 
Regulation, two new sections have been added: one on updated information on the 
programme  implementation,  and  the  second  one  on  the  summary  of  the 
conclusions from the evaluations of the previous MFF programmes. 

Commission's  progress  on  improved  performance  reporting  is  also  evidenced  in 
2016  with  the  Annual  Management  and  Performance  Report  for  the  2015  EU 
Budget. This report combines for the first year two former reports: the Evaluation 
Report produced in accordance with Article 318 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union; and the Synthesis Report required by Article 66 (9) of the 
Financial  Regulation.  Bringing  together  information  on  the  performance  and 
management  of  the  EU  budget,  the  report  provides  a  comprehensive  overview  of 
how  the  EU  budget  supports  the  Union's  political  priorities,  and  of  the  role  the 
Commission  plays  in  fostering  a  culture  of  performance  and  in  ensuring  and 
promoting  the  highest  standards  of  budgetary  management.  The  report  is  an 
important  part  of  the  Commission's  contribution  to  the  annual  budgetary 
discharge process and includes two main sections: 

•  Section  1  summarises  the  performance  of  the  budget  based  on  the  evidence 
available  in  2015  on  the  results  achieved  with  the  EU  budget.  For  each  of  the 
budget  headings,  it  provides  information  on  the  progress  of  the  2014-2020  MFF 
programmes and the latest available evidence on the results of the 2007-2013 MFF 
programmes; 

•  Section  2  describes  the  Commission's  management  of  the  EU  budget  in  2015 
summarising  information  on  the  achievement  of  the  internal  control  objectives; 
managing legality and regularity risks; the cost effectiveness of controls; and anti-
fraud strategies. As to legality and regularity, the Commission presents for the first 

20 

 
 
 
time a consolidated estimation of the amount at risk at closure, i.e. the estimated 
level of error after all corrective measures have been implemented at the closure of 
the programmes. 

Alongside the developments made on reporting the performance of the EU budget 
the Commission has also worked at improving its communication on its efforts to 
make  the  EU  budget  more  focussed  on  its  results.  For  this  purpose  a  high-level 
conference  on  'Budget  Focused  on  Results'  is  organised  every  year  since 
September 2015 to better understand stakeholders' expectations and visions for the 
present  and  future  of  the  EU  budget  and  to  share  best  practices.  This  is 
complemented  by  a  series  of  expert  meetings  on  performance-based  budgeting 
where  the  Commission  is  pooling  the  expertise  from  the  Member  States, 
international organisations and other European institutions to identify elements of 
performance-based budgeting useful for the EU budget. 

Finally, the Commission has launched a new initiative for the Web application to 
communicate examples on how the EU Budget is spent and makes the difference. 
It  includes  already  more  than  850  projects  in  Europe  and  beyond  covering  all 
kinds of funding areas: the projects cover all the areas covered by the EU Budget 
such  Agriculture,  Transport,  Development,  Competitiveness,  Economic 
governance, Research and so for. 

Notwithstanding  the  progress  achieved  in  2016,  the  Commission  remains 
committed  to  continuously  improving  year-on-year  the  quality  of  information  on 
the  performance  and  management  of  the  EU  budget  which  is  provided  to  the 
Budget Authority. 

30. 

(§  85  -  2014/PAR/0267)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
improve  communication  and  cooperation  between  actors  involved  in  budget 
planning,  implementation  and  discharge,  and  with  the  wider  public,  by  aligning 
expectations, sharing experiences on implementation and reporting on the attainment 
of results. 

Commission's response: 

There are many actors involved in the budget planning, implementation and daily 
management  of  the  EU  funds  leading  to  the  discharge.  At  every  step  of  the 
budgetary cycle, the Commission cooperates with different actors and stakeholders 
in order to efficiently manage EU Budget: 

1)  The  preparation  of  the  Budget  is  preceded  with  the  consultation  with  the 
European Parliament  and the  Council  at  the Trialogue meetings and follows the 
Budgetary  Authorities'  guidelines  related  to  the  draft  budget  for  the  year  in 
question.  DG  BUDG  coordinates  the  preparation  of  the  Draft  Budget  but  all 
DGs/Services are  appropriately consulted and the Draft Budget  is  adopted by the 
College. 

2)  After  the  submission  of  the  Draft  Budget  to  the  Budgetary  Authorities,  the 
Commission holds many meeting with the Council, the Parliament or both at the 
Trialogue  meetings  in  order  to  explain  the  proposal,  discuss  it  and  find  a 
consensus leading to the final adoption of the Budget. 

21 

 
 
 
3) During the budgetary year, the Commission is also active in communication and 
is available for the discussions, not only with the Budgetary Authority but also with 
the  Court  of  Auditors  and  other  stakeholders.  In  addition,  the  Commission 
prepares  regularly  various  the  reports  which  are  requested  by  the  Financial 
Regulation. 

In parallel, the EU Budget Focused on Result (BFOR) imitative launched by Vice- 
President Kristalina Georgieva in 2015 recognized the communication on the EU 
budget  matters  with  all  stakeholder  involved  as  one  of  the  most  important  work 
streams of that initiative. 

Within  this  framework,  the  Commission  has  made  an  important  investment  for 
improving it planning, implementation and discharge activities. 

In particular some actions can be mentioned: 

-On  the  planning  side with  the  definition  of  the  Strategic Plan  and  Management 
Plan the Commission has more streamlined and centred the activities of its services 
on the priorities of the Commission and the competencies of the DGs with a clearer 
framework  for  the  Commission  and  DGs'  accountability:  general  objectives  have 
been defined at Commission level and specific objectives at levels corresponding to 
the  DGs'  accountability,    DGs'  operational  priorities  have  a  clear  distinction 
between attribution and contribution for policy and programmes' results. 

the 

is  consolidated 

implementation  side,  Programme  reporting 

into 
-On 
Programme  Statements  accompanying  the  draft  budget  including  programme 
implementation  update  and  lessons  learned  from  evaluations.  The  structure  and 
content  of  Programme  Statements  were  modified  providing  more  focused  picture 
on the programmes' progress. They include both ex-ante and ex-post information 
on  programmes'  performance  including  outputs  and  results  and  the  progress 
toward  their  targets.  In  addition  to  the  performance  information  required  by  the 
Financial  Regulation,  two  new  sections  have  been  added:  one  on  updated 
information  on  the  programme  implementation,  and  the  second  one  on  the 
summary  of  the  conclusions  from  the  evaluations  of  the  previous  MFF 
programmes 

-On the discharge side, for 2015, for the first time, the Commission reported on the 
EU  budget  in  an  integrated  package:  EU  Budget  Integrated  Financial  Reporting 
Package 2015, which includes four reports, providing key and detailed information 
for  the  reporting  year  on  revenue,  expenditure,  management  and  performance, 
notably.    The  Commission  considers  that  this  package  is  an  example  of  the 
Commission's  unwavering  commitment  to  the  highest  standards  of  financial 
transparency  and  accountability.  In  its  view,  bringing  these  four  specific  reports 
together  in  one  integrated  package  demonstrates  the  Commission's  effort  to 
provide  streamlined  yet  comprehensive  information  on  revenue,  expenditure, 
management and performance of the EU budget. 

Collaboration  with  stakeholders  have  been  further  enlarged  and  reinforced  with 
the launching of the expert’s meeting on performance based budgeting. This group 
bring together experts from the European Parliament, Member States dealing with 
budgetary  matters,  representatives  from  the  Court  of  Auditors  and  Commission 
services with a view to better understand stakeholders' expectations and visions for 

22 

 
 
the  present  and  future  of  the  EU  budget  and  to  enable  discussion,  exchange  of 
point  of  view  and  practices  at  technical  level  on  issue  pertaining  the  EU  Budget 
performance  framework.  The  first  meeting  has  launched  this  process  and  the 
second meeting focused on performance indicators. 

The communication on the EU Budget performance has been a continued effort: 
in  this  areas  can  be  mentioned  the  2015  Conference  on  EU  Budget  focused  on 
results  one  of  the  flagship  events  of  the  BFOR  initiatives  offering  a  high-level 
discussion on key  questions  on the European  budget  policy agenda and bringing 
participants from various Institutions, International Organizations, journalists and 
citizens interested in the topic with the EP represented at speakers’ level. This year 
another BFOR Conference will take place the 27th September. 

Finally,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  new  initiative,  the  EU  Results  Web 
application to communicate examples on how the EU Budget is spent and makes 
the  difference.  It  includes  already more  than  850  projects  in  Europe  and  beyond 
covering all kinds of funding areas: the projects cover all the areas covered by the 
EU Budget such Agriculture, Transport, Development, Competitiveness, Economic 
governance, Research and so for. 

Notwithstanding the progress the Commission remains committed to continuously 
improving its dialogue with all actors involved. 

31. 

(§  86  -  2014/PAR/0268)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
consider  using  tools  such  as  social  media,  surveys  and  focus  groups  to  measure 
public awareness and assess ways to improve their communications strategy in future 
regarding the results of the projects to the citizens. 

Commission's response: 

DG  COMM  already  uses  and  will  continue  to  use  all  three  tools  mentioned. 
Measuring  public  awareness  to  improve  communication  actions  is  kept  under 
constant  review,  including  each  year  at  the  annual  “EU  Budget  for  Results” 
conference". 

32. 

(§  88  -  2014/PAR/0269)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  corresponding 
improvements in areas such as the alignment of control intensity with risk, mapping 
performance reporting or the reliability of control results reported by Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  continuously  working  at  improving  the  cost-efficiency  of  its 
control  through  a  better  risk  based  approach  and  also  through  its  efforts  in 
simplifying rules. 

In  particular,  all  Commission  departments  have  been  invited  to  review  their 
control  systems  in  order  to  ensure  that  they  are  risk-based,  taking  into  account 
their  cost-effectiveness  and  having  due  regard  to  the  management  environment 
and  the  nature  of  the  actions  financed.  By  the  end  of  2015,  25  departments  had 
done  so;  half  had  taken  measures  to  improve  cost-efficiency  while  the  others 

23 

 
 
 
 
33. 

concluded that no changes were needed. The remaining departments are expected 
to implement measures or carry out their review in 2016. 

As regards the reliability of the control results reported by Member States, the DGs 
implementing  the  budget  in  shared  management  remain  committed  to  further 
strengthen the methodology used to assess the reliability of the data transmitted by 
the relevant national authorities. 

(§  90  -  2014/PAR/0270)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  focusing  on  the 
performance-based  approach  and  on  the  issue  of  market  imperfections/failures,  as 
this  approach  helps  focus  Union  funding  interventions  on  areas  where  criteria  of 
economy,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  are  best  accommodated;  points  out  that  the 
design should be tailored to a set of different market imperfection/failure types, one 
connected  with  information  asymmetry  and  the  other  related  to  commercial 
assessments of return that broadly do not include all positive externalities and wider 
social benefits whereas both are justifiably supported by Union funding. 

Commission's response: 

The  Juncker  Commission  aims  to  develop  a  stronger  performance  culture  in 
relation  to  the  EU  budget.  One  of  its  top  priorities  is  to  ensure  that  the  budget 
focuses  on  delivering  tangible  results  for  the  benefit  of  citizens.  To  this  end  a 
network  of  Commissioners  has  been  established  (‘an  EU  budget  focused  on 
results’)  to  enhance  the  performance  based  approach  to  Union  funding 
interventions, which among others, includes economy, efficiency and effectiveness 
considerations. Supporting competiveness and employment is one of the priorities 
of the EU 2020 strategy upon which the operational programmes have been agreed 
with  MS  and  largely  implemented  by  them.  In  line  with  the  agreed  pragmatic 
approach to focus on results, the Commission has also undertaken a collaboration 
with the European Parliament, the Council and the European Court of Auditors to 
discuss specific aspects of performance based budgeting. 

34. 

(§ 92 - 2014/PAR/0271) The European Parliament calls urgently for clarification as 
to  how  much  money  was  paid  from  Union  funds  to  media  undertakings  in  each 
Member State, which undertakings have received payments and whether the reason 
was to publicise the funds or another reason. 

Commission's response: 

Media companies may receive Structural Funds monies in two main ways: 

•  In  the  2007-2013  programmes  technical  assistance  support  to  the  information 
and communication activities of programmes often involve service contracts signed 
by  the  Commission  with  different  media  enterprises  (delivery  of  services  against 
payment).  These activities  are  part of  an overall programmed budget of  EUR 1.7 
billion  (0.6%  of  ERDF/CF)  for  "  Evaluation  and  studies;  information  and 
communication" across all Member States. 

24 

 
 
 
 
• Media companies may also be beneficiaries of  grants or other public  aid under 
different  innovation  and  business  support  measures  of  co-funded  programmes 
implemented by the Member States. 

However, for Cohesion Policy under shared management the Commission has the 
responsibility  to  manage  programmes  and  not  projects.  Therefore,  it  does  not 
dispose of data giving a systematic overview of such media related support. 

Having  said  that,  Regulation  (EC)  1828/2006,  Article  7(2)(d)  requires  the 
managing authorities to publish a list of beneficiaries, the names of operations and 
the  amount  of  public  funding  allocated  to  the  operations.  Such  publications  are 
done  for  all  programmes  under  Cohesion  Policy  for  the  period  2007-2013.  This 
requirement  continues  to  apply  to  the  2014-2020  period  (Article  115(2)  of  the 
Regulation (EU) 1303/2013). 

For  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  for  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the 
Commission provides an overview to the national internet sites on which the above 
lists are published: 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/beneficiaries/ 

35. 

(§ 95 - 2014/PAR/0272) The European Parliament underlines that the better Member 
States  strive  to  fulfil  the  national  and  quantified  Europe  2020  Strategy  targets,  the 
more  Union  budgetary  spending  can  be  targeted,  and  the  more  those  targets  will 
reflect  the  real  Union  economic,  social,  territorial  and  environmental  needs,  the 
better the Union will ensure an environment for sound financial management; in this 
context,  recommends  the  creation  of  a  permanent  platform  composed  of  the 
Commission,  national  governments´  representations,  including  the  permanent 
representations to the Union, regional governments and authorities. 

Commission's response: 

Under  shared  management  the  necessary  arrangements  to  implement  the  EU 
budget  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  already  exist  and 
structures  that  allow  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  exchange 
information are already in place such as: Monitoring Committees of the individual 
operational  programmes  (where  Member  States  and  local  authorities,  non-
governmental organisations, social partners and the Commission are represented); 
the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  expert  groups  in  the  Council  or 
the  Commission-run  networks  (e.g.  Evaluation  Networks  of  DG  REGIO  and  DG 
EMPL),  which  also  serve  as  a  platform  for  exchange  of  views  between  the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States.  In  addition,  Member  States  were  invited  to 
the  Commission  on 
focus 
contributing to the Europe 2020 Strategy. 

their  2014-2020  Partnership  Agreements  with 

Finally and in the framework of the Commission's initiative " EU Budget Focused 
on Results", the Commission also set up an inter-institutional working group that 
gathers  representatives  from  the  Member  States,  the  European  Parliament,  the 
European Court of Auditors, international organisations and the Commission with 
the  objectives  to  exchange  knowledge  and  best  practices  and  achieve  a  common 
understanding on budget performance framework and concepts. 

25 

 
 
 
36. 

(§  98  -  2014/PAR/0273)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
provide  guidance  to  the  Member  States  so  that  partnership  agreements  and 
operational  programmes  transpose  more  fully  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  also 
implement the concept of common results indicators as proposed in the Court’s 2014 
annual report. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts this recommendation in its part concerning the alignment 
of ESI Funds to the Europe 2020 Strategy and rejects it in its part concerning the 
proposed concept of common result indicators. 

Regarding  the  transposition  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  in  operational 
programmes,  the  Commission  considers  that  ESI  Funds  do  contribute  to  the 
achievement of the political priorities of the Union and there is an explicit link to 
the Europe 2020 Strategy through the thematic objectives. However, the latter was 
conceived  as  a  broad  development  strategy  for  the  Union,  not  only  for  the  EU 
budget. The Commission does not recommend a mechanistic approach in applying 
the  Europe  2020  targets  to  the  EU  budget.  Nevertheless,  any  modification  of 
partnership agreements and operational programmes should take into account the 
contribution  of  ESI  Funds  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy.  This  approach  will  be 
applied during the implementation of the 2014-2020 period. 

Regarding  common  result  indicators,  they  are  set  in  all  programmes  across  all 
funds.  It  was  not  considered  however  relevant  to  have  common  result  indicators 
across  the  ESI  Funds  due  to  the  variety  in  the  types  of  investments and  changes 
targeted. The Commission will assess and report on results based on the relevant 
indicators identified for each priority within programmes, but not through a simple 
aggregation of information across all funds, which is not considered useful due to 
the variety of expected results. 

37. 

(§  101  -  2014/PAR/0274)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
strengthen  the  negotiations  with  the  Member  States  regarding  the  necessity  of 
publishing national declarations and annual summaries. 

Commission's response: 

Annual  summaries  cannot  be  published  or  be  made  public,  unless  the  European 
Parliament has obtained the prior authorisation of the Member States concerned. 
Any  disclosure  of  the  documents  must  comply  with  the  rules  laid  down  in  the 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and  Commission 
documents,  as  well  as  in  the  Framework  Agreement  on  relations  between  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  European  Commission  (L  304/47  -  Annex  II; 
forwarding of confidential information to Parliament, point 1.2.3). 

The  2013  annual  summaries  were  translated  and  submitted  to  the  European 
Parliament  in  May  2015.  To  date,  the  Commission  has  received  the  approval  of 
seventeen  Member  States  for  the  transmission  of  the  annual  summaries  to  the 
European  Parliament:  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia, 

26 

 
 
 
 
Greece,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom, and recently Hungary. Sweden has 
requested  that  publication  of  its  annual  summary  would  be  accompanied  by  its 
national declaration. 

However, the EP will be informed on the results of the Commission's assessment 
of the assurance reporting provided by the Member States, including management 
declarations, in the respective AAR each year. 

Concerning  the  national  declarations  it  is  exclusively  for  the  Member  States 
issuing the national declarations to decide whether they publish their declarations. 
The  current  national  declarations  issued  by  the  Netherlands,  Sweden  and 
Denmark  are  made  public  by  the  national  authorities  and  can  be  found  on  their 
respective websites. 

38. 

(§  109  -  2014/PAR/0275)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  fit  all  reporting  arrangements  into  a  single  coherent  system  to  protect 
the  financial  interests  of  the  Union,  thereby  making  the  fight  against  fraud  and 
corruption more effective 

Commission's response: 

With  regard  to  the  reporting  for  the  protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the 
Union, coherent systems are already in place, managed by the competent service, 
and have been integrated to the maximum extent possible. 

Regarding the expenditure areas of the budget, a legislative package (4 delegated 
and  4  implementing  acts)  concerning  the  reporting  of  irregularities  (including 
suspected fraud) was adopted in 2015, covering all areas of shared management. 
Furthermore, in April 2016 a new version of the IT tool known as the Irregularity 
Management System, managed and maintained by OLAF, was released to further 
streamline  the  reporting  of  irregularities.  Irregularities  concerning  Traditional 
Own  Resources  (TOR)  are  reported  via  an  IT  system  known  as  OWNRES  and 
managed  and  maintained  by  DG  BUDG  via  the  OWNRES  application  while  the 
the 
Commission  follows 
Commission's  Accrual  Based  Accounting  System  (ABAC).  All  the  results  are 
reported and analysed in the Commission's Annual Report on the protection of the 
EU's financial interests. 

to  direct  expenditure 

the  cases  related 

through 

Integrating  all  reporting  arrangements  into  one  system  would  be  practically 
difficult  and  not  necessarily  desirable  given  that  the  existing  systems  relate  to 
different budget areas and management modes. 

39. 

(§  110  -  2014/PAR/0276)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
improve  legislation  in  this  regard  (transparency),  making  it  compulsory  to  publish 
data relating to all the beneficiaries of Union funding, including data on subcontracts. 

Commission's response: 

In making the rules (Art. 35 of the Financial Regulation), the Commission had to 
make a balancing test in order to comply with the case-law of the Court of Justice 

27 

 
 
 
 
(Joined cases C-92/09 and C-93-09, known as the "Schecke" case). The obligation 
to disclose the information on recipients must be waived if it risks threatening the 
rights  and  freedoms  of  individuals  concerned,  as  protected  by  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or harm the commercial interests of 
the recipients, as in the case of grants, procurements, and prizes. When it comes to 
the  implementation  of  the  principle  of  transparency,  the  Commission  thrives  to 
increase the transparency vis à vis the citizen of the Union, unless when the level 
of publication went beyond the protection of personal data as it was previously the 
case in the agricultural sector before the Court invalidated the relevant provisions. 

In the same spirit, the rules of application of the Financial Regulation (Article 21) 
foresee that the publication should be waived for contract below Euro 15.000 and 
for scholarships and other direct support paid to natural persons in most need. It is 
justified by the fact that a rather small amount of natural persons are concerned 
by these spending. 

Furthermore,  the  proposal  for  a  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation  adopted  by 
the  Commission  on  14  September  2016  resorts  to  publishing  aggregated  data 
(policy  area,  type  of  support,  type  of  beneficiary)  about  certain  beneficiaries  of 
financial  instruments,  in  order  to  respond  to  input  from  entrusted  entities  that 
individual data publication is too burdensome. 

40. 

(§ 111 - 2014/PAR/0277) The European Parliament urges the Commission to join the 
Criminal  Law  Convention  on  Corruption  (ETS  No.  173)  of  the  Council  of  Europe 
and  to  speed  up  the  negotiations  on  the  participation  of  the  Union  in  the  Group  of 
States against Corruption (GRECO), in order to contribute to more co-ordinated anti-
corruption policies in Europe. 

Commission's response: 

On  the  EU  accession  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Criminal  Law  Convention  on 
Corruption (CETS No.: 173), Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention 
on Corruption (CETS No.: 191) and Civil Law Convention on Corruption (CETS 
No.: 174: EU accession had been considered at the end of the 1990's until 2004. At 
the time, it was concluded that the issue should no longer be pursued until the then 
Constitutional  Treaty  (subsequently  Lisbon  Treaty)  would  be  in  force.  Following 
the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, EU accession to these Conventions may 
be revisited, although no Commission decision has been taken in this respect, nor 
discussion taken  place  on  this  in Council  or  Parliament.  It  would  require  in  any 
event a thorough assessment of the impact (political, legal etc.) of such accessions. 
On  the  EU  participation  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Group  of  States  against 
Corruption  (GRECO):  The  Commission  has  set  out  its  position  on  the  EU 
participation in GRECO in 2012. Still, EU participation in GRECO is blocked on a 
legal  basis  divergence  between 
the  Council.  The 
Commission's interpretation is that accession to GRECO would be possible only on 
the basis of Art. 220 TFEU - the Treaty article on cooperation with international 
organisations.  This  legal  basis  is  however  rejected  unanimously  by  the  Council, 
insisting  on  full  EU  membership  based  on  Art.  218  TFEU  (the  Treaty  article  on 
the  conclusion  of  agreements  with international  organisations).  The  Commission 

the  Commission  and 

28 

 
 
 
has been in touch with the Council of Europe. The GRECO Plenary has expressed 
its  willingness  to  explore  the  possibility  to  pursue  ad  hoc  cooperation  pending 
formal accession. 

41. 

(§  112  -  2014/PAR/0278)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
assume  full  responsibility  for  the  recovery  of  funds  unduly  paid  into  the  Union's 
budget and to establish uniform reporting principles in all Member States with a view 
to ensuring comparable, reliable and adequate data collection. 

Commission's response: 

Done  -  the  Commission  has  always  taken  responsibility  for  the  protection  of  the 
EU  budget  by  putting  in  place  the  appropriate  controls,  both  preventive  and 
corrective. This controls are tailored to fit the relevant policy areas, in compliance 
with he underlying legislation. The explanation and results of these activities are 
detailed each year in both the Communication on the protection of the EU budget 
and the Annual Management and Performance Report. 

42. 

(§  113  -  2014/PAR/0279)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
clarify  the  relations  between  Eurojust,  the  European  Public  Prosecutor's  Office 
(EPPO) and European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to examine the possibility of a 
stronger integrated approach of these agencies in order to make investigations more 
effective (reference made to COM(2013)0534 - 2013/0255(APP), point 29). 

43. 

Commission's response: 

The relations between the EPPO and OLAF and between the EPPO and Eurojust 
are  addressed  in  the  provisions  of  the  EPPO  Regulation  submitted  to  the  JHA 
Council  on  9  June,  and  which  received  "broad  conceptual  support".  The 
Commission  supports  those  provisions,  based  on  close  cooperation  and  on  the 
complementarity of the respective mandates and competences of the three bodies. 
Such  an  approach  would  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  EU's  financial 
interests. 

(§ 114 - 2014/PAR/0280) The European Parliament urges the Commission, however, 
to  take  into  account  the  recommendations  both  of  the  European  Ombudsman 
concerning the composition of the expert groups and of the study 'Composition of the 
Commission's  expert  groups  and  the  status  of  the  register  of  expert  groups'  when 
drafting amendments to the current horizontal rules governing expert groups, in order 
to create a more systematic and transparent approach; requests that the Commission 
engage  in  a  dialogue  with  Parliament  before  the  rules  are  formally  adopted, 
especially in relation to the upcoming report of the Committee on Budgetary Control 
and the Committee on Legal Affairs on this matter. 

Commission's response: 

The  new  framework  for  Commission  expert  groups  is  close  to  the  Ombudsman’s 
approach, but not identical. See also reply to 2014/PAR/0241. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
44. 

(§ 115 - 2014/PAR/0281) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to take 
appropriate  measures  and  on  OLAF  to  continue  to  support  the  Member  States  in 
improving  their  performance  in  the  prevention  and  detection  of  fraud  against 
European funds. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission and OLAF cooperate closely with the Member States in order to 
improve  their  ability  to  identify  and  prevent  fraud  against  Union  funds,  by 
providing them with practical tools to recognise red flags and equipping them with 
IT tools, e.g. the Irregularity Management System and ARACHNE. OLAF shares 
good practices in fraud prevention, detection, and investigation in regular fora and 
develops,  together  with  Member  States  experts,  practical  guidance  documents  in 
this respect. In 2015 for example, two practical documents were prepared, one for 
funds managers regarding 'conflicts of interests' and a second one on the 'national 
anti-fraud  strategies'.  A  third  document  concerning  the  role  of  auditors  in 
preventing  and  detecting  fraud  was  presented  in  the  framework  of  the  annual 
coordination  meetings  with  the  ESIF  audit  authorities  during  2015.  From  2017, 
the Commission will make the Irregularity Management System also available for 
the  purpose  of  transmission  of  information  related  to  risks  threatening  the  EU 
financial interests by entities implementing the budget under shared management. 

Based on its investigative experience, OLAF conducts comprehensive trainings for 
Member  States  authorities  regarding  fraud  prevention,  risk  assessment  and 
analysis of irregularities and suspected fraud. For example, over the past two years 
OLAF chaired or participated in workshops on fraud prevention and detection in 
seminars organised by DG REGIO in 12 different locations covering 14 Member 
States. In the last quarter of 2015, OLAF provided training on fraud prevention to 
competent authorities of all Member States in the framework of training seminars 
on the updated system of the Irregularity Management System. 

(§  116  -  2014/PAR/0282)  The  European  Parliament  Invites  the  Commission  to 
develop  a  system  of  strict  indicators  and  uniform  criteria;  s  concerned  about  the 
reliability  and  quality  of  data  coming  from  the  Member  States;  calls  on  the 
Commission,  therefore,  to  work  closely  with  Member  States  to  guarantee 
comprehensive,  exact  and  reliable  data  keeping  in  mind  the  goal  of  full 
implementation of the Single Audit Scheme. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  already  replied  in  the  context  of  the  follow-up given  by  the 
Commission on the EP Resolution for the Protection of the Financial Interests of 
the EU Budget – (SP(2016)349 dated 04/07/2016)”. 

(§  117  -  2014/PAR/0283)  The  European  Parliament  reiterates  its  request  that  the 
Commission  report  biannually 
the 
implementation  by  the  Union  institutions  of  their  internal  anti-corruption  policies, 
and is looking forward to reading the next report in early 2016; asks the Commission 
to add a chapter on the performance of the Union institutions in fighting corruption 

to  Parliament  and 

the  Council  on 

to 

30 

45. 

46. 

 
 
 
 
and  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Commission's  future  anti-corruption  reports  should 
always cover all the Union institutions and bodies. 

Commission's response: 

Pursuant  to  COM  Decision  C(2011)  3673  final  of  6.6.2011  "Establishing  an  EU 
Anti-corruption  reporting  mechanism  for  periodic  assessment",  the  Commission 
should  publish  a  report  every  two  years  assessing  anti-corruption  efforts  in  the 
Member  States  with  a  view  to  fostering  political  will,  helping  to  step  up  anti-
corruption efforts and reinforcing mutual trust among the Member States. The EU 
Anti-Corruption  Report  is  a  Commission  document.  As  such,  it  could  not  be 
considered  a  methodologically  sound  assessment  of  the  Union  institutions  and 
their internal anti-corruption policies; this should be achieved through an external 
and independent assessment However, as a party to UNCAC —the UN Convention 
Against Corruption— the EU is under an obligation to participate in the UNCAC 
review  mechanism,  which  will  cover  both  the  EU  institutions  and  relevant  EU 
policies and legislations. 

47. 

(§  119  -  2014/PAR/0284)  The  European  Parliament  calls  for  switching  from  a 
voluntary to a mandatory Union register for all lobbyists performing their activities 
towards the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The  proposal 
for  a  mandatory  Transparency  Register  based  on  an 
Interinstitutional Agreement between European Parliament, the Council of the EU 
and the European Commission was adopted by the Commission on 28 September 
2016. 

48. 

(§ 121 - 2014/PAR/0285) The European Parliament demands that in its second anti-
corruption  report,  at  the  latest,  the  Commission  carries  out  further  analysis  at  the 
level  of  both  the  Union  institutions  and  the  Member  States  of  the  environment  in 
which  policies  are  implemented,  in  order  to  identify  inherent  critical  factors, 
vulnerable areas and risk factors conducive to corruption. 

Commission's response: 

Pursuant  to  COM  Decision  C(2011)  3673  final  of  6.6.2011  "Establishing  an  EU 
Anti-corruption  reporting  mechanism  for  periodic  assessment",  the  Commission 
should  publish  a  report  every  two  years  assessing  anti-corruption  efforts  in  the 
Member  States  with  a  view  to  fostering  political  will,  helping  to  step  up  anti-
corruption efforts and reinforcing mutual trust among the Member States. The EU 
Anti-Corruption  Report  is  a  Commission  document.  As  such,  it  could  not  be 
considered  a  methodologically  sound  assessment  of  the  Union  institutions  and 
their internal anti-corruption policies; this should be achieved through an external 
and independent assessment However, as a party to UNCAC —the UN Convention 
Against Corruption— the EU is under an obligation to participate in the UNCAC 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
review  mechanism,  which  will  cover  both  the  EU  institutions  and  relevant  EU 
policies and legislations. 

49. 

(§  122  -  2014/PAR/0286)  The  European  Parliament  calls  upon  the  Commission  to 
fulfil  without  delay  its  reporting  obligations  under  the  UN  Convention  against 
Corruption. 

Commission's response: 

The  EU  is  a  party  to  UNCAC  —the  UN  Convention  Against  Corruption.  The 
Commission will therefore take the necessary steps for the EU to participate in the 
UNCAC review mechanism, and notably a self-assessment. 

50. 

(§ 126 - 2014/PAR/0287) The European Parliament asks the Commission to evaluate 
switching from a reimbursement scheme to an entitlement scheme where appropriate, 
as a means of simplification. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission always assesses the possible cost systems which are most adapted 
to the funding scheme proposed when drafting basic acts and putting in place their 
implementation framework. 

The Commission also considers that the potentially negative impact of complicated 
eligibility  rules  on  the  risk  of  error  for  reimbursement  schemes  is  significantly 
mitigated  when  simplified  cost  options  (SCOs)  are  used  and  has  already  invested 
significant  efforts  to  expand  the  use  of  SCOs  in  cohesion  policy  and  notably  the 
ESF. The Commission will also continue to support Member States' efforts in this 
context. 

In  parallel  the  Commission  launched  an  important  exercise  on  simplification 
whose results will be addressed in the framework of the "omnibus regulation" and 
the revision of the Financial Regulation, the use of simplified forms of grants (unit 
costs,  lump  sums,  flat  rates)  is  facilitated  by:  1)  lowering  of  the  level  of 
authorisation (from the Commission to the Authorising officer), 2) by allowing for 
the  use  of  expert  judgement  when  setting-up  unit  costs  in  case  where  sufficient 
data  are  missing,  3)  by  expressly  providing  the  possibility  to  use  a  lump  sum 
covering  an  entire  action  ("single  lump  sum").  In  addition,  a  new  category  of 
Union contribution is added as an option where the financing is not linked to costs 
of the relevant operations but rather based either: 

i)  on  the  fulfilment  of  certain  conditions  ex  ante  as  set  out  in  the  basic  act  [or 
Commission Decisions], and/or 

ii) on the achievement of results measured through performance indicators. 

The  proposals  above  (increased  use  of  SCOs,  single  lump  sums  and  new 
contributions)  will  offer  the  possibility  to  all  policy  areas  to  switch  from  a 
reimbursement  scheme  to  a  real  "entitlement  scheme",  where  appropriate,  as  a 
means of simplification. Entitlements programmes already exist today in direct aid 

32 

 
 
 
 
to  farmers,  budget  support  in  the  area  of  external  aid  or  certain  student  and 
research fellowships. 

Evaluation and analysis of the main results of 2014 Union budget 

51. 

(§ 129 - 2014/PAR/0288) The European Parliament requests that identifying the real 
effects of the Union budget utilisation on Union macroeconomic indicators becomes 
a subject of discharge procedures. 

Commission's response: 

The new Annual Management and Performance Report, being one of the reports  
contributing  to  the  annual  budgetary  discharge  process,  presents  evidence 
available  on  the  results  achieved  with  the  EU  budget.  It  includes  a  summary 
account of progress on Europe 2020 headline targets and relevant indicators and 
covers    both  the  implementation  of  the  2014-2020  programmes  and  the  results 
from the 2007-2013 programmes. 

At  the  same  time,  detailed  and  comprehensive  reporting  on  Member  States' 
performance towards their national Europe 2020 strategy targets takes place in the 
context of the Country Reports of the European Semester, as well as in the yearly 
updates on the Europe 2020 main indicators published by Eurostat. 

52. 

(§  132  -  2014/PAR/0289)  The  European  Parliament  calls  upon  the  Commission  to 
consider in its budgetary and financial management the capacity constraints in some 
Member  States,  in  order  to  avoid  the  under-utilisation  of  funds  and  to  increase  the 
absorption rates, especially in the area of the ESIFs. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission refers to its reply provided on recommendation 2014/PAR/0263. 

53. 

(§  133  -  2014/PAR/0290)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
take measures to reduce outstanding commitments, including a timely closure of the 
2007-2013 programmes and a reduction of cash held by fiduciaries. 

Commission's response: 

For  Cohesion  Policy,  the  outstanding  commitments  for  the  period  2007-2013 
decreased  in  2014,  thus  making  the  end  of  an  upward  trend  observed  until  end 
2013. It could have been reduced even more if the Commission's ability to honour 
payment  claims  received  late  in  the  year  had  not  been  limited  by  the  lack  of 
payment appropriations. The decrease of outstanding commitments in 2014 is due 
to the high level of payments made for the 2007-2013 programmes coming towards 
the end of their eligibility period. 

See  also  the  Commission  reply  to  recommendation  2014/PAR/0263  regarding 
actions performed by the Task force for Better Implementation. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
On  the  reduction  of  cash  held  by  fiduciaries,  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period  each  application  for  interim  payment  for  financial  instruments  submitted 
during  the  eligibility  period  shall  not  exceed  25  %  of  the  total  amount  of  the 
programme  contribution  committed  to  the  financial  instrument.  Subsequent 
payments are made only when the majority of the previous payments have reached 
final  recipients  (such  as  SMEs).  Oversizing  and  low  disbursement  rates  of 
financial instruments should therefore be less common also due to the obligatory 
ex-ante assessment for financial instruments, which will aim at identifying market 
failures and propose solutions to address them. 

54. 

(§ 135 - 2014/PAR/0291) The European Parliament urges the Commission to come 
up with a proposal to revise the MFF regulation in order to fix, among other matters, 
the RAL. 

Commission's response: 

The  issue  of  RAL  has  to  be  separated  from  the  issue  of  an  abnormal  backlog 
resulting from a lack of payment appropriations. 

The  existence  of  RAL  is  unavoidable  in  the  budgetary  system  with  differentiated 
implementation  of  commitments  (where  RAL  represents  simply  the  stock  of  on-
going  projects)  but  an  orderly  progression  between  the  appropriations  in 
commitments and payments needs to be ensure. 

Backlog  represents  the  amount  of  outstanding  bills  at  the  end  of  the  year.  The 
difficulties of 2014 and 2015 with an abnormal backlog at the end of the year were 
addressed  in  the  Payment  plan  proposed  by  the  Commission  and  agreed  by  the 
Council and the EP. The abnormal backlog will disappear at the end of 2016. 

As regards the future evolution of RAL, the Commission has presented a payment 
forecast  assessing  the  sustainability  of  the  current  ceilings  and  including  the 
estimate of de-commitments and the evolution of RAL until the end of the current 
MFF in the framework of the mid-term review of the MFF. 

Revenue 

55. 

(§  144  -  2014/PAR/0292)  The  European  Parliament  calls  therefore  on  the 
Commission  to  declare that GNI  data submitted by Member  States  are reliable and 
their contributions therefore correct. 

Commission's response: 

Each year, the GNI Committee, composed of the Member States and chaired by the 
Commission,  issues  an  opinion  on  the  appropriateness  of  GNI  data  for  own 
resources purposes with respect to reliability, comparability and exhaustiveness. As 
usual, this opinion was favourable in 2014. 

56. 

(§ 147 - 2014/PAR/0293) The European Parliament asks the Commission to propose 
legislative  amendments  enabling  effective  cross-checks  between  customs  and  tax 
data  and  to  focus  its  monitoring  of  Member  States  on  improving  the  timeliness  of 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
their  replies  to  information  requests  and  the  reliability  of  the  VAT  Information 
Exchange System. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission issued a VAT action plan in April 2016 that announced measures 
to tackle the VAT gap, inter alia conducting monitoring visits in 2017. 

Concerning the effective cross checks between customs and tax data, reference is 
made  to  the  comment  on  §114  of  the  ECA's  Special  report  24/2015  and  the 
Commission's reply. 

57. 

(§ 148 - 2014/PAR/0294) The European Parliament asks the Commission to provide 
analysis  regarding  the future  of Union funding  evaluating the adequacy of the own 
resource base. 

Commission's response: 

As part of the agreement on the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework, a 
High  Level  Group  on  Own  Resources  (HLGOR)  was  established  in  order  to 
further  the  reflections  on  possible  reforms  of  the  financing  of  the  EU  budget. 
According  to  a  joint  declaration,  the  system  of  own  resources  should  be  simple, 
transparent  and  subject  to  democratic  accountability.  The  Commission  appointed 
three  members  to  participate  in  the  HLGOR  (FVP  Timmermans,  VP  Georgieva, 
Commissioner  Moscovici)  and  they  are  actively  involved  in  the  ongoing  work. 
While they are not formally representing the Commission in order to allow for an 
independent, forward-looking debate, the  three Commission members will ensure 
that the reflections and the final report and recommendations of the HLGOR will 
feed  into  the  subsequent  Commission  deliberations  in  a  consistent  and  coherent 
manner. 

The debates and analyses comprise evaluation of the present system, including the 
GNI-  and  VAT-based  own  resources  as  well  as  the  assessment  of  alternative 
financing sources. 

An external study on the potential and the limitations of reforming the financing 
of the EU Budget has been commissioned. It will inform the work of the HLGOR. 
The final report of the HLGOR is  expected by the end of 2016.  The Commission 
will  take  it  into  account  when  assessing  whether  legislative  initiatives  are 
appropriate in a post-2020 perspective. 

58. 

(§  151  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0295)  The  European  Parliament  points  out  that  changes 
resulting  from  the  work  on  reservations  would  have  been  mitigated  if  the 
Commission´s  verification  cycle  had  been  shorter  and  recalls  that  the  Parliament 
urged the Commission in its resolution of 29 April 2015 concerning discharge for the 
financial year 2013: 

(b) to limit the use of general reservations to exceptional cases 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

The target for the completion of the next verification cycle is under 4 years, i.e. by 
end  2019.  An  annex  to  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  DG  Budget 
and  Eurostat  was  signed  in  April  2013  with  a  view  to  reducing  significantly  the 
number of general reservations. 

59. 

(§  154  (a)  and    §  151  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0296)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the 
Commission to take measures to reduce the number of years covered by reservations 
at the end of next verification cycle for GNI-based contributions. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

The verification cycle will be shortened and reservations will be set and addressed 
at an earlier stage (in the course of the verification cycle). 

60. 

(§ 154 (b) - 2014/PAR/0297) The European Parliament asks the Commission to put 
in place the arrangements needed to reduce the impact of revisions of methods and 
sources presented by Member States for the compilation of their GNI. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

In  the  current  verification  cycle  (2016-9),  which  will  be  shorter  than  previously, 
reservations  will  be  set  earlier  in  the  process,  with  a  shorter  deadline.  Thus,  the 
number  of  years  covered  by  them  will  be  fewer.  The  procedures,  including  the 
timetable, can be found in the following CIRCABC library: "CIRCABC > Eurostat 
> Monitoring GNI for own resource purposes >Library > GNI Committee meetings 
> ESA 2010 control cycle framework documents. 

https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp 

61. 

(§  154  (c)  -  2014/PAR/0298)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
improve the existing guidance given to Member States' customs authorities as to the 
checks they make (in particular the post clearance audits). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has updated – in close cooperation with Member States experts – 
the  Audit  guide  for  customs'  post  clearance  audits.  Additionally,  within  the 
framework of the EU Strategy and Action Plan for customs risk management the 
Commission is addressing further the Court's observations by establishing legally 
binding financial risk criteria. 

62. 

(§  154  (d)  -  2014/PAR/0299)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
ensure  that  Member  states  have  the  appropriate  systems  in  place  for  preparing  and 
managing their statements of customs duties and sugar levies. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

In  the  course  of  its  inspections  of  traditional  own  resources  the  Commission 
regularly  ensures  that  Member  States  have  appropriate  systems  in  place  for 
preparing and managing their statements of customs duties and sugar levies, and it 
will continue to do so. 

63. 

(§  154  (e)  -  2014/PAR/0300)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to 
extend  the  risk  assessment  capacity  of  Eurofisc  to  cover  the  VIES  system 
(transnational VAT information exchange system). 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  following  up  on  the  May  25  ECOFIN  conclusions  and 
providing the IT and financial support to Eurofisc in this field. 

Competitiveness for growth and jobs 

64. 

(§ 162 - 2014/PAR/0301) The European Parliament Is pleased that the Commission 
was  able  to  meet  most  targets  of  the  key  performance  indicators  (KPI);  doubts 
however, that the target of investing, by 2020, 3 % of the Union GDP in research and 
development  can  be  met; calls  on  all Member  States  to  rise to  the challenge;  notes 
that the situation seems to be particularly difficult for Croatia, Finland, Luxembourg 
Portugal,  Romania,  Spain  and  Sweden;  calls  upon  the  Commission  to  draw  the 
necessary  conclusion  for  the  forthcoming  mid-term  revision  of  the  MFF  to  be 
presented by the end of 2016. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  continues  to  follow  up  the  performance  of  Member  states  in 
meeting  their  targets,  most  notably  in  the  European  Semester  process.  In  its 
communication  on  the  mid-term  review/revision  of  the  MFF,  the  Commission 
proposed to further boost growth and jobs via more money for highly performing 
programmes, including Horizon 2020. 

65. 

(§ 168 - 2014/PAR/0302) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to take 
more  incisive  measures  to  ensure  that  external  audit  certificates  more  accurately 
reflect the error rate. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has already addressed this request as follows: 

First, the Commission has sent a letter to all beneficiaries of the Horizon 2020 and 
FP7  asking  them  to  pay  special  attention  to  the  10  most  common  errors  that  the 
Commission  has  identified  from  its  own  audits  or  from  those  of  the  Court  of 
Auditors. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  same  spirit,  the  Common  Audit  Service  for  H2020  sometimes  encounters 
cases of errors which should have been prevented by certification. When the errors 
encountered  exceed  2%  of  the  financial  statement,  the  certifying  auditor  is 
informed of the shortcomings. 

Second, the Commission continues providing advice and information related to the 
legal  aspects  of  the  Framework  programmes  to  all  the  beneficiaries  –  and  their 
certifying  auditors  -  that  are  addressing  specific  questions  associated  with  their 
particular projects they are handling. 

The  Commission  has  organized  a  series  of  meetings  targeting  beneficiaries  and 
independent  certifying  auditors  (>300)  to  raise  awareness  of  the  most  common 
errors.  In  addition,  feedback  has  been  provided  to  certifying  auditors  who  have 
made  errors,  and  a  clearer  template  for  audit  certificates  has  been  provided  in 
Horizon 2020. 

The Commission will continue to provide guidance to its auditors, and to work on 
further improvements in the overall process. 

In addition, the Commission is currently providing ad-hoc training to staff on the 
most relevant findings reported by the Court of Auditors. 

66. 

(§ 182 - 2014/PAR/0303) The European Parliament deplores the recent press reports 
casting doubt on DG RTD's ability to protect the financial interests of the Union in 
an effective manner; calls on the Commission to clarify the circumstances that have 
been  well  documented  in  the  media  and  point  to  a  clear  case  of  maladministration 
and unequivocal damage to the Union's financial interests and reputation. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has already supplied detailed documents and explanations to the 
European  Parliament  on  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  media.  The  Commission 
considers  that  it  protects  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  effectively,  and  has 
done so in the cases raised. 

The Commission is ready to provide additional information to Parliament on any 
topic  of  their  interest  within  the  terms  of  the  established  inter  institutional 
procedures. 

67. 

(§ 188 - 2014/PAR/0304) The European Parliament asks the Commission to transmit 
to the Parliament the action plan presented to the ITER Council in November. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the request with the following clarification. The schedule 
presented by the IO Director General at the ITER Council in November 2015 was 
not accepted by the ITER Council. The Commission has already transmitted to the 
EP (to the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control and to the Chair of the 
Committee  on  Industry,  Research  and  Energy)  the  report  of  “the  ITER  Working 
Group on the Independent Review of the Update Long-Term Schedule and Human 
Resources” with an information note on the outcome of the Extraordinary ITER 

38 

 
 
 
 
Council  meeting  that  defines  the  path  to  the  establishment  on  the  new  ITER 
Baseline. Therefore no further action is considered necessary on this request. 

68. 

(§  189  -  2014/PAR/0305)  The  European  Parliament  insists  to  receive  from  the 
Commission, by June 2016, an update on a long term project schedule and associated 
costs for ITER in preparation of budgetary decisions for the following year; recalls 
that for 2016 payment appropriation at a level of almost EUR 475 million have been 
set aside for ITER. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the request. Following the meeting of the ITER Council 
in June 2016, the Commission is preparing information for the EP and Council on  
the agreed update of the long term schedule, the estimated cost impact and the way 
to the approval of a new Baseline for the ITER project. 

69. 

(§ 191 - 2014/PAR/0306) The European Parliament asks the Commission to present 
information in future discharge procedures about the implementation of the InnovFin 
which covers the Union budget share taking part in this financial instrument. 

Commission's response: 

Information  on  InnovFin  is  already  made  available  to  the  public  and  to  the 
Parliament, including in the discharge procedure. 

Information regarding the different InnovFin financial instruments is provided to 
the European Council and the European Parliament during the annual budgetary 
procedure through the reports foreseen by the Financial Regulation. In line with 
Article 38(5) of the Financial Regulation, a Working Document part X focuses on 
quantitative aspects. A qualitative description of the performance of instruments is 
included  in  the  report  “Financial  Instruments  implementation”  according  to 
Article 140(8) of the Financial Regulation. 

InnovFin  is  subject  to  the  audit  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  who  may 
choose  to  report  on  it  in  their  Annual  Report.  During  the  discharge  process 
members of the CONT committee may, and have, ask questions about InnovFin. 

70. 

(§  195  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0307)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(a)  adopt  a  set  of  measures  to  reduce  the  relatively  high  error  rate  in  this  area, 
improve  data  and  information  management  to  analyse  also  very  advanced  R&D&I 
projects and test their real impact against the potential of Horizon 2020. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission continues to work to reduce errors. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  errors  detected  in  FP7  impact  personnel  costs,  calculation  of  overheads  and 
unsubstantiated other costs. Because this is “exacerbated” by the complexity of the 
FP7 rules for calculating eligible costs, the Commission took several measures in 
order to  mitigate  the  impact of  these errors: communication campaign to  remind 
beneficiaries and their certifying auditors of the eligibility rules, communication to 
all registered FP7 beneficiaries about the 10 most common errors in cost claims, 
set up of a help desk and improvement of the Guide to Financial Issues for FP7 
explaining  the  rules  of  eligibility  to  eliminate misunderstandings.  In  addition  the 
Commission  services  have  regular  meetings  with  the  National  Contact  Points 
which  amongst  other  issues  the  eligibility  of  costs  including  personal  costs  are 
regularly dealt with. Furthermore at the end of 2011 the Commission did decide on 
some  simplifications,  two  of  which  affected  personnel  costs:  1)  it  allowed  SME 
owner-managers  to  claim  costs  in  accordance  with  Marie  Curie  rates  and  2)  it 
simplified the rules for the declaration of average personnel costs. 

Training is being provided to officials in order to improve the effectiveness of ex-
ante  controls  carried  out  before  payments  and  to  raise  the  awareness  on  how  to 
detect cases of fraud. 

Monitoring  of  the  effectiveness  and  results  of  Horizon  2020  projects  is  ongoing, 
most notably through the Annual Monitoring Report. The impact of Horizon 2020 
will be assessed through evaluations. 

However the Commission does not share the idea that an error rate above 2% is, by 
definition,  "high".  In  making  its  proposal  for  Horizon  2020,  the  Commission 
informed  the  budgetary  authority  (in  the  financial  statement  accompanying  the 
proposed legislation) that an error rate below 2% could not be expected. The fact 
that  the  error  rate  for  research  will  not  be  below  2%  has  also  been  underlined 
several times by DG RTD and its Commissioner in the discharge procedure. In the 
discharge  2014,  to  go  alongside  the  criticisms  of  the  error  rate,  paragraph  177 
reads: 

"[the EP] Remains convinced that the Commission must continue to strive for an 
acceptable  balance  between  the  attractiveness  of  programmes  to  participants  and 
the  legitimate  necessity  of  accountability  and  financial  control;  recalls,  in  this 
connection,  the  statement  of  the  Director  General  in  2012  that  a  procedure 
designed  to  attain  a  residual  error  rate  of  2  %  under  all  circumstances  is  not  a 
viable option". 

It is expected that the simplifications introduced in Horizon 2020 should lead to a 
significant  reduction  in  error  rate.  In  its  opinion  on  the  Horizon  2020  rules 
(Opinion 6/2012), the Court considered that "the radically simplified cost-funding 
model will improve the reliability of the model, decrease the risk of irregularities in 
beneficiaries’ cost claims [and] make project accounting less complex". 

71. 

(§  195  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0308)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(b) present a  report evaluating  the current  experience with a new practice  to  utilise 
special  agencies  in  this  segment  from  the  budgetary  point  of  view  as  well  as  to 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
introduce on a regular basis reporting on compliance with the relevant Europe 2020 
Strategy indicators. 

Commission's response: 

A) Evaluation of the current experience …. To utilize special agencies. 

According  to  article  25  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  58/2003,  an  external 
evaluation on the operation of each Executive Agency (EA), has to be drawn up by 
the  Commission every three years and submitted to  the  steering  committee of  the 
EA, to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Court of Auditors. 

The  3  years  evaluation  (mid-2012/mid-2015)  related  to  ERCEA  and  REA 
operations  been  have  been  sent  to  the  European  Parliament  early  this  year.  The 
Commission  also  conducted  in  2015  evaluations  for  the  period  2011-2013  of 
EASME and INEA. These evaluations show the cost savings of Agencies, as well 
as  underlining  their  satisfactory  performance,  especially  in  providing  a  quality 
service to participants. Similar evaluations are due to be delivered for EACEA. 

B) Reporting on compliance with the relevant Europe 2020 Strategy indicators 

Horizon  2020  has  established  Key  Performance  Indicators  and  other  indicators 
related  to  cross-cutting  issues  that  will  be  monitored  to  assess  the  results  of  the 
programme.  The  Annual  Monitoring  Reports  will  publish  information  on  all  the 
indicators.  This  monitoring  will  be  complemented  by  evaluations  that  will  look 
deeper at the impact of the programmes on the Europe 2020 targets. 

(§ 196 - 2014/PAR/0309) The European Parliament calls on the DG RTD to improve 
information management, especially in line with a performance culture to include all 
stakeholders,  especially  new  ones,  and  to  improve  information  management  with 
beneficiaries in Member States; recommends more inclusion of independent auditors 
focusing  not  only  on  errors,  but  also  on  the  performance  cycle,  including  an 
appropriate  evaluation  of  risks;  additionally,  regulatory  rules  should  undergo  an 
impact assessment. 

72. 

Commission's response: 

The performance framework is being completed for Horizon 2020 and will become 
more and more obvious as the results of projects arrive. 

Information on the rules, and on performance, is being disseminated widely to all 
stakeholders. Any regulatory rules will undergo an impact assessment. 

73. 

(§ 197 - 2014/PAR/0310) The European Parliament calls on DG RTD to publish, in 
its respective annual activity reports, its contribution to the CSR in a comprehensive 
and  detailed  way,  as  these  recommendations  should  demonstrate  how  the  DG 
facilitates Member States' progress towards the EU 2020 Strategy objectives. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

In  accordance  with  Article  66.9  of  the  FR,  the  Annual  Activity  Report  (AAR) 
should  contain  financial  and  management  information  in  relation  to  the 
operations performed by the AOD as well as the assessment of the extent to which 
the operational expenditure made has contributed to the policy achievements and 
generated  EU  added  value.  Therefore,  the  AAR  is  not  to  report  on  the  DGs 
contribution to the Country Specific Recommendations in the European Semester. 
Nevertheless, DG RTD's AAR for 2015 did provide more information on the steps 
taken by RTD in the European Semester process (see AAR section 1.1.3 on pages 
21-22), and this will be maintained for 2016.') 

74. 

(§  198  -  2014/PAR/0311)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  the  Commission 
launched  a  stakeholder  consultation  on  additional  simplifications  that  should  be 
introduced in Horizon 2020; requests information on how additional simplifications 
will be implemented. 

Commission's response: 

available 

The results of the stakeholder consultation (final report on the online survey) are 
publicly 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/events/survey/h2020
_simplification-survey_final-report_en.pdf.  The  feedback  shows  that  participants 
in  Horizon  2020  appreciate  the  simplification  that  was  introduced  in  the 
programme, including in particular the general funding model, the single flat rate 
for indirect costs, the acceleration of granting processes and the Participant Portal 
as the one-stop shop for the electronic-only grant management. The suggestions by 
stakeholders  for  further  improvements  concern  the  details  of  implementation 
rather than fundamental changes to the legal basis. 

Based  on  the  feedback,  the  following  additional  simplification  measures  are 
currently under consideration: 

- Extended use, where appropriate of two-stage proposal evaluation, for mitigating 
the effects of oversubscription; 

-  A  change  to  the  Horizon  2020  model  grant  agreement  related  to  calculation  of 
personnel cost hourly rates for parts of reporting periods outside closed financial 
years; 

-  A  further  simplification  of  the  template  for  time-recording  and  the  related 
guidance in the annotations of the model grant agreement; 

- Clarifications in the annotations to the model grant agreement on the eligibility 
of costs related to internally produced consumables; 

-  Continuous  improvements  to  the  Participant  Portal,  based  on  systematic 
collection of user feedback. 

75. 

(§  199  -  2014/PAR/0312)  The  European  Parliament  calls  therefore  on  the 
Commission  to  revise  the  annotations  and  allow  internally  invoiced  costs  to  be 
eligible  as  other  direct  costs  without  splitting into  cost  categories  and  without  time 
records for services. 

42 

 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation set up the general funding rate at 100% 
of the direct costs plus a flat rate of 25% providing a contribution to the indirect 
costs. Internal invoices include cost elements which qualify as indirect costs under 
the H2020 rules, and for which the EU budget already provides funding via the 25 
% flat-rate. Accepting unconditionally internal invoices, i.e. without fulfilling the 
criteria applicable to direct costs, would lead to a risk of financing twice the same 
costs.  Such  situation  would  be  a  breach  of  the  provisions  of  the  Financial 
Regulation and also incompatible with the H2020 Rules for Participation. 

Nevertheless, while underlining that there are, at present, no proposals to change 
the  provisions,  the  Commission  is  currently  assessing,  in  collaboration  with 
research organizations, possible means to further simplify the declaration of costs 
that  might  be  determined  via  internal  invoices.  Such  further  simplification  can 
however  only  be  designed  in  a  manner  compatible  with  the  applicable  rules. 
Horizon 2020 grants, like any other EU grant, must fulfil the principles set up in 
the  Financial  Regulation,  notably  the  principle  of  co-financing  (Article  125  FR) 
and  the  principle  of  non-cumulative  award  (Article  129  FR).  With  the  funding 
intensity of 100 % of the direct costs plus the flat rate to contribute to the indirect 
costs set up in the H2020 Rules the margin of manoeuvre for the Commission on 
this subject is very limited. 

Economic, social and territorial cohesion 

76. 

(§ 205 - 2014/PAR/0313) The European Parliament notes that in the area of regional 
and  urban  policy,  the  four  most  important  KPI  include:  number  of  jobs  created, 
number  of  enterprises  cooperating  with  supported  research  institutions,  number  of 
enterprises  receiving  support,  and  additional  capacity  for  renewable  energy 
production; whereas global achievements reported in Member States' implementation 
reports progressed on average by 29 % compared to the previous year, not all targets 
will be met due to the economic crisis, according to the Commission; calls upon the 
Commission to draw the necessary conclusion for the forthcoming mid-term revision 
of the MFF to be presented by the end of 2016. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  notes  that  the  KPI  referred  to  in  the  recommendation  of  the 
European Parliament are the ones reported in the 2014 Annual Activity Report of 
DG Regional and Urban Policy regarding the global achievements of operational 
programmes  under  2007-2013  programming  period.  In  its  2015  AAR,  DG 
Regional  and  Urban  Policy  reported  updated  figures  which  show  a  further 
progress of 31% on average compared to previous year. Where targets are set, they 
have been met or exceeded for 2 KPI (respectively number of enterprises receiving 
support  and  number  of  enterprises  cooperating  with  supported  research 
institutions). Regarding job creation, the updated value reported represents 72% of 
the target initially set. While some of the related policy targets might not be met in 
all  Member  States  –  largely  due  to  the  economic  crisis  –  the  final  level  of 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
achievement  is  projected  to  be  very  close  to  the  set  targets.  In  addition,  it  should 
also  be  considered  that  the  last  year  of  implementation  on  the  ground  for  2007-
2013 programmes is 2015. Considering that the reported achievements values are 
in most cases referred to the year 2014, the policy will continue to produce results 
for at least one full year of implementation. 

The  2007-2013  programmes  are  now  in  their closure  phase  and  the  final  picture 
on reported achievements of the KPIs will be known after closure reporting by the 
Member  States  in  March  2017.  The  MFF  review  relates  to  the  period  2014-2020 
and not specifically to the implementation (or closure) of the period 2007-2013. As 
regards to the implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes, the Commission will 
present  to  the  EU  institutions  a  first  Summary  Report  on  the  implementation  in 
2014-2015  of  the  programmes  financed  by  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  2014-2020  in  December  2016.  The  Parliament  will  then  have 
the opportunity to examine implementation. 

77. 

(§  219  -  2014/PAR/0314)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
create  an  effective  tool  to  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  the  reliability  of 
controlling and auditing activities provided by the national authorities. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  puts  continuous  effort  to  improve  the  work  of  the  national 
authorities  under  shared  management.  The  following  actions  were  performed  in 
the last year and will continue to be performed: 

Concerning audit authorities 

Capacity building actions at the level of audit authorities, but also managing and 
certifying  authorities  are  also  carried  out,  which  contribute  to  preventing  and 
correcting  errors  and  therefore  contribute  to  the  assurance  process:  there  is  a 
structured  cooperation  with  audit  authorities  on  methodology  and  reported  audit 
results  through  multilateral  and  bilateral  meetings.  Also,  multilateral  meetings 
included three technical meetings in Brussels in 2015, covering the discussion on 
various  guidance  notes  and  methodological  issues  for  the  period  2014-2020.  The 
Homologues Group annual meeting of European Auditors for ESI Funds in Riga 
in  September  2015  covered  issues  linked  mainly  to  the  closure  of  the  2007-2013 
programming period. 

The  annual  bilateral  audit  coordination  meetings  with  audit  authorities  of  each 
Member  State  are  an  opportunity  to  review  the  specific  issues  raised  in  the 
assessment  of  Annual  Control  Reports  and  Annual  Opinions,  implementation  of 
the agreed audit strategies as well as national audit results. They are also a place 
to  exchange  information  on  planned  audit  work  and  respective  updated  risk 
assessments. 

Guidance  for  Member  States  is  continuously  improved  and  discussed  with  audit 
authorities. Five  new guidance  notes  for 2014-2020 were discussed  with Member 
States in technical and formal fora and issued in 2015. As at 15 February 2016, all 
guidance  notes  which  were  decided  to  provide  for  the  launching  of  the 
programming  period  2014-2020  have  been  already  published.  The  Commission 

44 

 
 
 
analyses  in  a  constant  manner  the  new  needs  of  guidance  and  to  update  the 
existing ones. 

In the framework of the structured multilateral and bilateral meetings with audit 
authorities,  general  and  specific  audit  issues  or  issues  of  common  interest  are 
debated extensively between the Commission and the audit authorities with a view 
to strengthening the audit community for ESI programmes. 

In the first semester of 2016, the Directorate-General has organised the following 
capacity- building actions for the benefit of audit authorities: 

•  Providing  detailed  feedback  to  the  audit  authorities  based  on  the  assessment  of 
the 2015 Annual Control Reports for better understanding of the main weaknesses 
identified  and  dissemination  of  good  practices  both  in  writing  and  in  annual 
bilateral audit coordination meetings organised between March and July. 

• Delivering a workshop on ETC sampling on 22 January for audit authorities 

•  Organising  a  technical  meeting  with  all  these  authorities  on  16  June,  focusing 
among other aspects on the shared audit services agreement between REGIO and 
EMPL,  the  2015  Annual  Activity  Report,  the  revised  guidance  on  sampling 
(allowing  for  the  calculation  of  representative  projected  error  rates  and  for 
conclusive  and  reliable  audit  results),  the  designation  experience  from  an  audit 
authority (Greece) and simplification (feedback from the High Level Group, audit 
of simplified cost options). 

• Participating in several seminars on management and control issues addressed to 
national authorities, such as: seminar held in Barcelona on 15 March focusing on 
the  annual  accounts  for  the  period  2014-2020,  organized  by  Interact;  audit 
workshop to German audit authorities held in Berlin on 13-14 April 2016; seminar 
held  in  Barcelona  on  20  April,  organized  by  EIPA;  eight  trainings  from  the 
module “Management and Control; Management Verifications were held on 17-18 
May  in  REGIO's  premises,  organized  by  REGIO  E1  and  the  consortium 
EIPA/Ecorys/E&Y  (in  total  252  representatives  from  26  Member  States  were 
trained on this topic between 2014 and 2016, see also next section); seminar held 
in Budapest on 22-23 June focusing on closure 2007-2013 and designation 2014-
2020, organized by Interact 

•  Continuing  to  provide  guidance  and  training  and  exchange  experience  for  the 
audit of specific and complex issues such as for example public procurement, State 
Aid,  financial  instruments  or  new  issues  for  2014-2020  such  as  audit  of 
performance  indicators,  audit  on  programme accounts,  e-cohesion  etc.  The  audit 
authorities have also been encouraged to use the TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER 
expert  exchange  system  set-up  by  the  Directorate-General  to  exchange  best 
practices (see also next section). 

Concerning managing and certifying authorities 

DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  also  contributes,  in  close  cooperation  with  DG 
Employment,  Inclusion  and  Social  Affairs,  to many  capacity  building  actions  for 
the  benefit  of  managing  and  certifying  authorities,  to  help  address  deficiencies 
detected through audits or to prevent such deficiencies. In this framework, several 

45 

 
 
initiatives took  place  in  2015  and  2016,  including  dedicated  meetings,  workshops 
or targeted actions related to various areas. 

These  initiatives  focused  mainly  on  the  most  problematic  areas  for  Cohesion 
policy.  In  this  respect,  specific  action  plans  on  public  procurement  and  state  aid 
have  continued  to  be  implemented  in  close  coordination  between  relevant 
Commission  services.  The  action  plans  include  stock-taking  of  good  practices, 
studies, seminars, trainings and specific support to Member States that do not fulfil 
the ex-ante conditionalities on public procurement and state aid. 

Furthermore, 
following  a  demand/supply  analysis  among  authorities 
implementing the funds a new tool for exchange of expertise between authorities 
managing  the  programmes  'TAIEX  REGIO  PEER  2  PEER'  is  continuously 
offered  to  managing  and  certifying  authorities.  The  tool  helps  to  organise  short 
term study visits, expert missions and workshops between peer institutions. Taking 
into account the overwhelmingly positive feedback from the evaluation of this pilot 
project,  the  REGIO  board  of  directors  decided  to  prolong  this  instrument  until 
2020. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  potential  for  establishing  a  REGIO  Community  of 
Practitioners  for  managing  authorities  (parallel  to  the  Homologues  Group)  is 
tested  and  developed.  First  meeting  of  this  network  (focusing  on  state  aid  and 
support to beneficiaries) will be organised in the framework of the European Week 
for Regions and Cities on 13 October 2016. 

In  the  framework  of  the  State  Aid  Action  Plan  country  specific  seminars  were 
organised in HR, CZ (for CZ and SK), RO and BG. In 2016 two thematic seminars 
(State Aid in Research, Development and Innovation projects co-financed from the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  State  Aid  in  Energy  Projects: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/conferences/state-aid/rdi/)  were 
organised. 

They will be followed in September 2016 by a seminar on Regional aid and state 
aid for SMEs and one in November on Transport. 

Three  initiatives  under  the  framework  of  the  Public  Procurement  Action  Plan 
developed  jointly  with  GROW,  other  ESIF  DGs  and  EIB  in  order  to  prevent 
irregularities  and  reduce  the  error  rate  related  to  public  procurement)  were 
implemented: 

• a stock-taking study on administrative capacity in the field of public procurement 
with country-specific information and recommendations; 

• a guide to support public officials across the EU to avoid the most frequent errors 
and adopt best practices; 

• two pilot projects in cooperation with OECD where support is  given to  BG and 
SK for their implementation of their action plan on public procurement (especially 
with regard to training). 

To further help Member States to prevent fraud and corruption 13 anti-fraud and 
anti-corruption  conferences/workshops  in  different  Member  States  (together  with 
OLAF,  HOME,  GROW,  ESIF  DGs  and  in  co-operation  with  Transparency 
International).were organized between 2014-2015. 

46 

 
 
Another  initiative  aimed  at  preventing  fraud  and  corruption  are  the  Integrity 
Pacts.  17  Pilot  Pacts  were  established  in  11  Member  States  in  cooperation  with 
Transparency  International  to  help  governments,  businesses  and  civil  society  to 
make procurement procedures more transparent and efficient and reduce the risk 
of fraud and corruption. An Integrity Pact is an agreement between a contracting 
authority  and  economic  operators  bidding  for  public  contracts  that  they  will 
abstain  from  corrupt  practices  and  will  conduct  a  transparent  procurement 
process.  To ensure  accountability and legitimacy,  a civil society organisation will 
monitor that all parties comply with their commitments. 

A  training  programme  for  managing,  certifying  and  audit  authorities  and 
intermediate bodies on the implementation of the new Regulation have continued 
to  be  implemented,  including  a  specific  module  on  “Management  and  Control; 
Management  Verifications”.  This  module  attracted  high  interest  from  Member 
State  experts,  6  modules  of  2  day  trainings  were  organized  with  on  average  35 
participants  per  module  from  different  Member  States  and  working  with  ERDF, 
ESF  and  CF.  Trainings  were  given  by  European  Institute  for  Public 
Administration  and  participation  from  REGIO  and  EMPL  experts  for  Q&A 
sessions. 

In  2015,  DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  and  DG  Employment,  Inclusion  and 
Social  Affairs  Audit  Directorates  promoted  also  actively  the  use  by  responsible 
national  authorities  of  the  Arachne  tool,  a  preventive  risk-scoring  tool  developed 
by the Commission. 

Following many requests a training programme organized by REGIO E1 and the 
consortium EIPA/Ecorys/E&Y for managing, certifying and audit authorities and 
intermediate bodies 

(module  “Management  and  Control;  Management  Verifications"  is  mentioned 
under initiatives concerning audit authorities) will be prolonged. 

In  2nd  half  of  2016  a  new  (fourth)  module  providing  customised  knowledge  on 
application of  the  State  aid  rules in  the  management  and  implementation  of  ESI 
funds will be rolled out. This module will be developed jointly with DG EMPL and 
COMP. All training materials and podcasts are accessible on-line for further use: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/guidance/training/. 

More  information  about  capacity  building  initiatives  developed  by  REGIO  for 
managing, 
found  here: 
audit 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/pl/policy/how/improving-investment/. 

authorities 

certifying 

and 

can 

be 

78. 

(§  221  -  2014/PAR/0315)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
provide  the  Member  States  with  stronger  incentives  to  boost  the  use  of  innovative 
financial instruments in their regional policy, while taking into consideration lessons 
learnt  from  the  period  2007-2013  in  order  to  avoid  blocking  funds  in  financial 
instruments. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  strongly  encourages  Member  States,  regional  and  local 
authorities to make wide use of financial instruments in key investment areas such 

47 

 
 
 
as  SME-support,  energy  efficiency,  information  and  communication  technology, 
transport  and  support  to  research  and  development,  but  also  in  other  thematic 
objectives where there is a possibility to finance potentially viable projects that do 
get  enough  funding  from  market  sources.  The  enhanced  use  of  financial 
instruments is also part of the Investment Plan for Europe. With this regard, the 
Commission  has  issued  a  brochure  providing  guidance  on  the  possibilities  to 
combine  ESIF  resources  with  support  provided  under  the  European  Fund  for 
Strategic Investments (EFSI). 

For  the  period  2014-2020  it  is  estimated  that  around  EUR  21  billion  of  ERDF, 
ESF and CF will be devoted to financial instruments. This is twice the amount of 
contributions paid to financial instruments as reported by the end of 2014 for the 
previous  period.  This  confirms  the  broad  recognition  of  the  benefits  of  financial 
instruments among the Member States, in particular in a context of budgetary and 
fiscal constraints. 

The CPR allows for the launch of  joint instruments  pooling ESIF resources and 
contributions from EU centrally managed financial instruments. The SMEI is the 
first joint instrument of its kind blending funds available from ESIF, EU budget, 
EIF  and  EIB.  Its  scope  is  defined  in  Article  39  of  the  CPR  and  it  consists  of  an 
uncapped  guarantee  to  financial  intermediaries  on  portfolios  of  SMEs  and 
securitisation financial instruments. 

The  CPR  also  introduces  more  flexible  co-financing  modalities  and  additional 
financial incentives: 

•  For  contributions  to  an  EU-level  financial  instrument  under  Commission 
management,  a  separate  priority  axis  may  be  envisaged  in  the  OP.  For  the  SME 
initiative  there  is  a  single  dedicated  national  programme  per  fund.  This  priority 
axis or national programme may benefit from a co-financing rate of up to 100 %. 

•  For  contributions  to  national,  regional,  transnational  or  cross-border  financial 
instruments, the EU co-financing rate will be increased by ten percentage points in 
cases where a priority axis is fully implemented through financial instruments. 

The  Commission  has  also  made  available  five  standardised  instruments  (off-the-
shelf),  for  which  the  terms  and  conditions  are  pre-defined  and  laid  down  in  a 
Commission Implementing Act. These instruments, ready-to-use, allow for a swift 
roll-out and are State Aid compliant from the onset. 

The Commission provides also assistance and advisory services to the programmes 
and other stakeholders on the use of financial instruments. A dedicated technical 
advisory platform (fi-compass) was established early in 2015 in partnership of the 
four European Structural and Investment Funds DGs with the EIB. Fi-compass is 
designed  to  support  ESIF  managing  authorities,  Employment  and  Social 
Innovation  (EaSI)  microfinance  providers  and  other  interested  parties,  by 
providing practical know-how and learning tools on financial instruments. These 
will include “how-to” manuals, factsheets for quick reference, e-learning modules, 
face-to-face  training  seminars  and  networking  events  for  the  exchange  of  good 
practice and networking across Member States. 

48 

 
 
The Commission has already considered the lessons learnt from the period 2007-
2013  in  order  to  avoid  blocking  funds  in  financial  instruments  in  the  2014-2020 
rules on phased payments: 

According  to  Article  41(1)  CPR,  each  application  for  interim  payment  submitted 
during  the  eligibility  period  may  not  exceed  25  %  of  the  total  amount  of 
programme contributions committed to the financial instrument under the relevant 
funding  agreement.  Second,  third  and  subsequent  payments  are  made  when 
certain spending thresholds relating to previous payments are reached. In addition, 
the  legal  framework  includes  a  mandatory  incentive-based  methodology  for 
management  costs  and  fees  which  encourages  spending  at  the  level  of  the  real 
economy. 

79. 

(§  225  -  2014/PAR/0316)  The  European  Parliament  asks  for  the  necessary  full 
transparency on the financing of infrastructural projects, including publication of ex 
ante  and  ex  post  assessments  of  the  economic,  environmental  and  social 
sustainability of projects. 

Commission's response: 

The  EU  legislation  already  endeavours  that  economic,  environmental  and  social 
aspects  are duly  taken into  account  before  EU funding is  granted  to any project. 
Even  if  the  main  responsibility  for  publishing  this  information  lies  at  Member 
States  level,  the  EU  legislation  established  appropriate  provisions  to  ensure  that 
necessary information is  provided to  the public. For example, the  Environmental 
Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  Directive  (2011/92/EU)  requires  that  the  public  is 
informed and entitled to express comments and opinions within the environmental 
impact  assessment  procedure.  The  results  of  consultations  are  taken  into 
consideration  in  the  development  consent  procedure  and  the  decision  to  grant  or 
refuse development consent shall be available to the public. 

According  to  Article  7.2.c  of  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  (Regulation  1315/2013),  a 
project of common interest must "be economically viable on the basis of a socio-
economic  cost-benefit  analysis".  Similarly,  major  projects  benefiting  from 
financial support of the European Regional Development Fund or of the Cohesion 
Fund shall be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. 

Cost-benefit analyses  are used as input  to  the decision process. These  documents 
are  often  subject  to  modifications  and  are  of  very  technical  nature.  For  these 
reasons, the Commission does not consider that requiring the publication of these 
documents  would  increase  transparency  about  the  financing  of  infrastructure 
projects.  Besides,  in  all  cases,  all  documents  transmitted  to  the  Commission  are 
subject to Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, 
Council and Commission documents. 

On  top  of  these  requirements  concerning  individual  projects,  other  requirements 
exist  to  assess  the  cumulative  impacts  of  projects.  In  this  respect,  the  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  (SEA)  Directive  (2001/42/EC)  requires  that  certain 
plans/ programmes are subject to an environmental assessment and consultations 
with the public and environmental authorities. 

49 

 
 
 
Furthermore,  ex  ante  assessments  of  individual  Operational  Programmes  are 
published including the findings of their SEAs. 

In  terms  of  reporting,  every  year  Member  States  are  required  to  submit  to  the 
Commission  annual  reports  on  implementation  of  operational  programmes, 
including any issues which affect the performance of the operational programmes 
and the measures taken. 

Additional progress reports in 2017 and 2019 will report on the implementation of 
the Partnership Agreements and report inter alia on changes in development needs 
and  progress  made  towards  achievement  of  the  Union  strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth.  An ex post evaluation which will be carried out 
and published by the Commission will examine the effectiveness and efficiency of 
the ESI funds and their contribution to the afore-mentioned Union strategy. 

The CEF Regulation (Regulation 1316/2013 - article 27) foresees a mid-term and 
ex-post  evaluation  that  comes  on  top  of  the  ex-ante  assessment.  All  these 
documents cover economic, environmental and social aspects and are made public. 

For these reasons, already existing requirements to publish relevant information to 
take account of the economic, environmental and social sustainability of projects 
are  well  established  and  additional  requirements  would  create  unjustified 
administrative burdens. 

80. 

(§  226  -  2014/PAR/0317)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
publish all the documents concerning the project to build the Lyon-Turin high-speed 
rail line and the funding arrangements for the project. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission ensures full transparency of all co-funding for the projects on the 
TEN-T  under  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility.  Funding  is  based  on  competitive 
calls for proposals; all projects selected and rejected are transparently reported on 
and the European Parliament is duly informed prior to each call as well as on the 
results and the follow-up, also by means of the annual hearings of the European 
Coordinators and the publication of their Work Plans and annual activity reports. 
There  are  detailed  project  fiches  and  lists  per  country  available  on  the  INEA 
website.  Furthermore,  all  tendering  by  Member  States  on  large  infrastructure 
projects  is  done  under  WTO/EU  public  procurement  rules,  which  include  the 
obligation to publish the names of successful bidders. These processes ensure that 
all  relevant  information  is  available  on  the  financing  of  large  infrastructure 
projects, including on Lyon-Torino. 

Beyond  the  above  information,  any  request  for  access  to  documents  is  treated  by 
the  Commission  pursuant  to  the  rules  laid  down  in  Regulation  1049/2001.  In 
general, project documentation emanates from the Member States and the Member 
States' approval is necessary before information can be disclosed to the public. In 
addition,  for  reasons  of  protecting  the  commercial  interests  of  individuals  or  of 
legal  persons  Regulation  1049/2001  provides  for  certain  restrictions  in  the 
disclosure of information. 

50 

 
 
 
81. 

(§ 237 - 2014/PAR/0318) The European Parliament appreciates, in this context, that 
the Commission has created a high-level group on simplification for beneficiaries of 
ESIFs;  wishes  to  receive  copies  of  the  reports  which  the  group  will  publish  as  of 
February 2016. 

Commission's response: 

The  High  Level  Group  on  Simplification  for  beneficiaries  of  ESI  Funds  is  an 
expert group set up to provide advice to the Commission.  They have been asked to 
make  recommendations  for  concrete  actions  that  can  maximise  the  potential  for 
simplification in the current period (2014-2020). 

They presented their first conclusions and recommendations on e-Governance and 
simplified costs to the Commission on 1 March 2016. They were published on the 
web  page  for  the  expert  group  and  were  also  made  available  separately  from  the 
Commission to the EU institutions, including the European Parliament. 

Future reports from the Group will also be available publically via the Commission 
Register of Expert Groups and the Simplify ESIF platform as well as being sent to 
the EU institutions. 

All  information  related  to  the  activities  of  the  High  Level  group  monitoring 
simplification for beneficiaries of EFI funds can be found on the Inforegio website 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/how/improving-investment/high-
level-group-simplification/ 

(§ 239 - 2014/PAR/0319) The European Parliament welcomes the fact that in 2014, 
the  Commission,  launched  a  first  series  of  four  studies  to  assess  the  integration  of 
elements of the reformed cohesion policy in the programming exercise for the 2014-
2020  period;  recalls  that  the  topics  for  the  four  studies  are  the  following:  ex  ante 
conditionalities,  the  partnership  principle,  the  performance  framework  and  "new 
provisions" (covering a range of new programming elements, such as the assessment 
of  administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries  and  planned  actions  for  its  reduction, 
horizontal  principles,  territorial  approaches  etc.);  wishes  to  receive  copies  of  the 
studies when they are completed. 

Commission's response: 

The publication of the four studies is foreseen for the second half of 2016. 

(§  244  -  2014/PAR/0320)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
indicate before 1 July what plans it has for remedying this situation (which indicated 
in  paragraph 243, namely  "were the checks at Member States  fully reliable in  both 
policy areas, the estimated level of error could have been reduced by 3,3 percentage 
points  for  the  regional  and  urban  policy  area  and  3,2  percentage  points  for  the 
employment  and  social  affairs  policy  area")    in  order  to  substantially  improve 
financial management at the Member State level. 

82. 

83. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission's  DGs  have  the  obligation  to  report  in  their  annual  activity 
reports  on  the  measures  to  improve  the  financial  management  in  the  Member 
States.  The  Commission  does  not  consider  that  an  additional  reporting  is 
necessary. 

Every  year  each  of  the  Commission's  DGs  publish  their  annual  activity  reports 
under the following homepage: 

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/index_en.htm 

See also reply to 2014/PAR/260. 

84. 

(§ 246 - 2014/PAR/0321) The European Parliament deplores that, for years, errors of 
the  same  kind  continue  to  be  identified  often  in  the  same  Member  States; 
acknowledges  that  suspension  and  interruptions  of  payments  by  the  Commission 
ensure  that  corrective  actions  are  carried  out  in  cases  where  deficiencies  were 
identified;  calls  on  the  Commission  to  step  up  monitoring  of  national  and  regional 
management and control systems in the light of this finding, and to ease monitoring 
in countries where management and control systems have proved reliable. 

Commission's response: 

It is not totally correct to say that the same kind of errors continue to be identified 
in  the  same  Member  States  as  the  situation  varies  each  year  for  different 
programmes/  countries/  intermediate  bodies,  it  depends  very  much  on  the 
programme  authorities  and  the  complexity  of  the  management  and  control 
systems. 

In addition, the Commission is already monitoring closely the work of programme 
authorities:  through  the  programming  period  it  has  managed  to  identify 
problematic OPs and/or national/regional/local bodies and focused on tailor-made 
remedial actions for them. 

Furthermore, for well-functioning programme authorities the Commission issues a 
letter of reliance ("Article 73 letter") and reduces its own audits on the spot. For 
programmes,  in  which  significant  and/or  repeated  weaknesses  are  identified  the 
Commission  plans  and  carries  out  additional  audits  to  fill  the  gap  between  the 
results it receives from these authorities and its own assurance conclusions. 

85. 

(§ 248 - 2014/PAR/0322) The European Parliament notes with concern the problems 
with  procurement  for  structural  fund  expenditure  monitoring  systems  in  2007-2013 
and also in 2014-2020, and calls for clarification as to why these problems arise in 
every funding period, as well as on the current state of the fraud investigations and 
the recovery of irregularly obtained funds. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  published  in  January  2016  a  stock-taking  study  that  provides  a 
systematic  assessment  of  the  public  procurement  systems  of  each  Member  State. 
This  study  offers  a  unique  and  unprecedented  overview  of  the  current  state  of 

52 

 
 
 
 
administrative capacity in the field of public procurement in the EU with a special 
focus  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  (ESI) 
Funds. It provides valuable information as to how to improve the quality of public 
procurement and ensure more efficiency, transparency and regularity, in line with 
the Investment Plan for Europe and the EU budget focused on results initiative. 

This study provides a systematic assessment of the public procurement systems of 
each  of  the  Member  States  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  way  how  they  are 
organised  and  function.  Based  on  desk  research  for  28  Member  States,  field 
interviews in 15 Member States, case studies in the Czech Republic and Portugal 
and an online survey of practitioners in 28 Member States, the study assessed each 
system’s strengths and weaknesses and provided country specific recommendations 
in 28 country profiles. It also identified a list of good practices and lessons learnt 
from  the  past  that  could  be  used  by  decision-makers  to  improve  administrative 
capacity,  especially  in  terms  of  human  resources,  systems  and  tools,  and 
governance structures. 

The study is one of the building blocks of the Action Plan on public procurement - 
part of the broader initiative launched by the Commission to help Member States 
and  regions  improve  the  way  they  invest  and  manage  Cohesion  Policy  funds, 
alongside  the  development  of  Peer  2  Peer,  a  platform  for  public  officials  from 
Member States to exchange expertise and best practice in administrative capacity-
building,  the  guide  on  the  most  common  errors  in  public  procurement,  and 
Integrity  Pacts,  a  tool  to  improve  transparency  and  accountability  in  public 
procurement.  The  action  plan  contains  in  total  14  actions  and  is  monitored  by  a 
technical  working  group  in  which  the  ESIF  DG's,  DG  GROW  and  EIB  are 
represented. 11 of 14 actions have been launched, 4 actions have been completed, 
of which the following 3 so far in 2016: dissemination of guide for practitioners; 
finalisation  of  stock-taking  study  on  MS  performance  incl.  recommendations; 
finalisation of expert study to explore development of an index to rate contracting 
authorities. The Integrity pact project - phase 2 has been successfully launched in 
cooperation with Transparency International. 

Therefore, the Parliament is kindly requested to consider the above study. On the 
part of anti-fraud investigations and the recovery of funds related to irregularities, 
the Parliament is kindly requested to consider the annual reports of OLAF and the 
annual Commission Reports on the Protection of the European Union's Financial 
Interests. 

86. 

(§  252  -  2014/PAR/0323)  The  European  Parliament  is  of  the  opinion  it  would  be 
helpful if the Commission provided a focused analysis of the national eligibility rules 
(for  both  the  2007  –  2013  and  2014  –  2020  periods)  and  on  this  basis  prepared 
guidance  for  Member  States  on  the  simplification  and  elimination  of  unnecessarily 
complex and complicated rules (gold-plating). 

Commission's response: 

Тhe Commission accepts this recommendation. 

53 

 
 
 
The  Commission  will  pay  specific  attention  to  national  eligibility  rules  in  its 
monitoring  and  audit  of  national management  and  control  systems, in  particular 
in Member States with persistently high error rates. 

On  this  basis,  it  will  help  the  Member  States  concerned  to  simplify  and  avoid 
unnecessarily  complex  and  burdensome  rules,  facilitate  the  exchange  of  good 
practices  and  will  report  on  the  experience  acquired  in  2018.  The  Commission 
continues to heavily invest  on the use of  simplified cost  options during the  2014-
2020 programming period. 

Regarding the national eligibility rules of the 2014-2020 programming period, the 
Commission  services  launched  in  July  2015  a  study  on  new  provisions  on 
simplification  during  the  early  implementation  phase  of  the  ESI  Funds.  The 
overall objective of this study is firstly to assess how the simplification possibilities 
in  the  new  regulatory  framework  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds  have  been  taken  up  by  Member  States  during  the  early  implementation 
phase and secondly to compare and quantify the impact of regulatory changes in 
the  overall  delivery  mechanism  on  the  administrative  burden  and  costs  for 
beneficiaries and programme authorities. Thirdly, the study should also look at the 
creation  of  additional  administrative  burden  and  costs  resulting  from  rules  at 
national  or  regional  level  which  go  beyond  what  is  strictly  required  by  Union 
legislation (“goldplating”). 

Moreover,  the  Commission  notes  that  it  is  providing  observations  on  selection 
criteria  to  be  decided  by  monitoring  committees  and  has  issued  extensive  and 
timely  guidance  to  Member  States  during  the  start-up  of  the  2014-2020 
programming  period.  It  will  continue  to  guide  the  Member  States  in  order  to 
simplify and avoid unnecessarily complex and burdensome rules whenever specific 
instances of gold plating are identified. In this framework, the Commission and the 
Member  States  meet  on  a  regular  basis  to  discuss  and  clarify  these  issues.  The 
Commission  is  also  heavily  investing  on  the  use  of  SCOs  during  the  2014-2020 
programming period. 

The Commission will also continue cooperating with national audit authorities to 
encourage them to identify and report, in system audits and other audits, eligibility 
rules which are unnecessarily complex and that can be simplified without putting 
at stake the legality and regularity of expenditure. 

Finally, the Commission recalls that under shared management, the establishment 
of national eligibility rules is the responsibility of the Member States who should in 
the  first  instance  review  and  simplify  their  national  eligibility  rules  and 
disseminate  good  practices,  based  on  cumulative  national  and  EU  audit  results 
from  the  2007-2013  programming  period  and  experience  collected  by  managing 
authorities and intermediate bodies. 

87. 

(§ 255 - 2014/PAR/0324) The European Parliament expresses concern regarding the 
checks  carried  out  on  funds  for  refugees,  which  are  frequently  allocated  to  the 
Member States in emergencies and in a manner not consistent with the rules in force; 
regards it as essential that the Commission introduce more rigorous checks, not least 
with  a  view  to  ensuring  that  the  human  rights  of  refugees  and  asylum  seekers  are 
upheld. 

54 

 
 
Commission's response: 

Up to  date DG HOME was not notified of  any cases  of  non-compliance with the 
applicable rules with regard to attribution of emergency assistance and/or respect 
of  rights  of  asylum  seekers  and  refugees  in  the  context  of  emergency  assistance 
projects. We would like to reiterate that DG HOME has in place a robust control 
system  for  emergency  assistance.  DG  HOME  prepared  internal  procedures  with 
regard  to  the  processing  of  MS'  applications for  emergency  assistance  as  well  as 
an application form and guide for applicants. The evaluation committee has been 
set up and its composition takes into account an appropriate representation of the 
most relevant policy units, the units in charge of the national programmes and the 
direct  management  team.  The  financial  resources  for  emergency  assistance  are 
made  available  through  Annual  Work  Programmes  which  serve  as  financing 
decisions.  Following  recommendations  made  by  the  ECA,  applications  for 
emergency assistance are  specifically requested to  include measurable targets for 
output,  outcome  and,  where  possible,  impact  indicators.  Implementation  of  the 
emergency assistance project is regularly monitored by the desk officer in charge. 
In  addition,  it  is  subject  to  the  same  level  of  control  and  audit  as  other  funding 
implemented  under  direct  management.  For  funds  managed  under  shared 
management  a  control  chain  is  set  up  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  actions 
with a view to ensuring sound financial management of Union Funds. The legal 
basis set out the minimum requirements on controls and audits, which take place 
at  both  national  and  COM  level.  At  national  level,  the  main  actors  are  the 
Responsible Authority (RA) and the Audit Authority (AA). Administrative and on-
the-spot  controls  on  payment  claims  submitted  by  beneficiaries  are  performed  by 
the  RA  throughout  the  expenditure  life  cycle  and  allow  for  timely  corrective 
measures. The AA provides reasonable assurance that the accounts transmitted to 
the COM are true, complete and accurate and that the internal control procedures 
have  operated  satisfactorily.  The  AA  operates  following  the  International  Audit 
Standards.  At  COM  level,  the  main  services  involved  are  the  geographical  desks 
and  the  audit  sector.  The  geographical  desks  ensure  regular  contacts  with  the 
national authorities and analyse the accounts submitted by the MS on yearly basis 
and audit sector carries out audits to ensure that management and control systems 
set  up  by  MS  are  functioning  effectively.  Therefore,  regarding  the  allocation  of 
funds to MS, we consider the recommendation as largely implemented. Regarding 
the respect of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers, it has to be noted 
that legal  basis for  AMIF  and  ISF  requires that  actions shall  be  implemented  in 
full  respect  for  fundamental  rights  and  human  dignity/Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights of EU. In this respect DG HOME will reinforce its checks by adapting the 
procedure  for  monitoring  visits  for  funds  managed  both  under  shared  and  direct 
management  (additional  question/check  to  be  introduced  during  the  monitoring 
visit). 

88. 

(§ 260 - 2014/PAR/0325) The European Parliament recalls that the implementation 
of 51 priority projects in Greece needed to be accelerated; furthermore, 14 projects - 
concerning,  among  other  issues,  the  cadastre  and  the  national  registry  -  have  been 
identified  as  "bottleneck"  projects  and  run  the  risk  of  de-commitment;  expects  the 

55 

 
 
 
Commission to update Parliament on the situation in the 2014 Commission discharge 
follow-up report. 

Commission's response: 

89. 

Following  the  submission  of  the  closure  documents  for  the  programmes  2007-
2013,  it  will  be  clear  how  many  priority  projects  have  been  completed  or  will  be 
phased for co-financing in the programming period 2014-2020. 

(§  261  -  2014/PAR/0326)  The  European  Parliament  recalls  that  the  Czech  Audit 
Office  report  OPTP/2014/SM/01  on  the  procurement  procedure  for  the  monitoring 
system for 2014-2020, which was filed with the Commission in April 2015, refers to 
unwarranted  expenditure  of  over  EUR  9  million;  welcomes  the  fact  that  the 
Commission has issued a letter of warning of possible interruption of payments and 
called  on  the  Czech  authorities  to  apply  adequate  financial  corrections;  wishes  to 
know how the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) assessed the situation. 

Commission's response: 

With respect to the procurement procedure for the CZ monitoring system for 2014-
2020,  OLAF  has  analysed  the  initial  information  received  and  dismissed  it 
following  the  selection  process  for  proportionality  reasons  and  on  grounds  of 
subsidiarity.  OLAF  is  monitoring  developments  and  will,  based  on  feedback 
received  from  its  partners,  assess  again  whether  the  information  received  allows 
for  the  conclusion  that  the  matter  has  been  solved  satisfactorily,  or  whether 
investigative initiatives by OLAF are needed. OLAF has been informed that in the 
meantime payments have been interrupted. 

90. 

(§ 263 - 2014/PAR/0327) The European Parliament notes that the analysis however 
shows  that  the  use  of  FEI  among  the  Member  States  differs  radically;  calls  on  the 
Commission  to  analyse  the  main  reasons  behind  such  dramatic  differences  among 
Member States and to find an effective incentive for them to be more active in using 
FEI in those fields where they have proved to be successful. 

Commission's response: 

In the period 2007-2013 FEIs for ERDF and ESF are established in 25 Member 
States (with exception of Ireland, Luxembourg and Croatia). The number of FEIs 
and their financial allocations differ indeed among the different Member States as 
there is a difference between the market needs of the different Member States. The 
implementation of the FEIs during this period differed also from a Member State 
to  another  as  a  result  of  a  number  of  factors  including  the  financial  crisis,  the 
limited experience in some Member States and the late start of some instruments. 

In  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  cohesion  policy  programmes  2007-2013  focusing  on 
financial  instruments  for  enterprise  support  published  in  February  2016,  the 
reasons  of  the  main  differences  between  the  FEIs  implementation  in  Member 
States are explained in detail. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
When  preparing  the  2014-2020  legal  framework  for  the  shared  management 
financial  instruments,  the  Commission  addressed  the  challenges  detected  in  the 
2007-2013  period  in  order  to  provide  Member  States  with  clarity  and  legal 
certainty. A significant number of incentives for Member States have been put in 
place  to  make  an  effective  use  of  financial  instruments  (e.g.  ex-ante  assessment, 
flexible implementation options to deliver across all thematic objectives, possibility 
to implement standardised "off-the-shelf" instruments, possibility of increased co-
financing  rate  at  axis  level,  phased  payments,  incentive-based  methodology  for 
management costs and fees, etc.). 

The  Commission  refers  also  to  its  reply  under  recommendation  2014/PAR/0315 
with  regard  to  the  actions  it  undertakes  to  encourage  the  use  of  financial 
instruments in the Member States for the period 2014-2020. 

91. 

(§  264  -  2014/PAR/0328)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
contribute  to  eliminating  this  negative  feature  of  FEI  utilisation  and  considers  the 
new provision for 2014-2020 for payment to FЕI in tranches as a positive step in this 
direction. 

Commission's response: 

The  legal  framework  clearly  stipulates  a  phased  payment  system  based  on  the 
actual performance of the financial instrument in the ground (Art 41 CPR). 

Please consider also the Commission reply to 2014/PAR/0315. 

92. 

(§ 265 - 2014/PAR/0329) The European Parliament notes that the pronounced boom 
in  FEI  use  will  necessarily  lead  to  a  completely  new  approach  to  spending  public 
money by public administration authorities and audit and control bodies, which to an 
extent  requires  a  “new  culture”  in  the  environment  for  innovative  financial 
instruments;  calls  on  the  Commission  to  test  an  adequate  preparedness  of  this 
environment. 

Commission's response: 

The 2014-2020 programming and implementation framework is set-up to improve 
the  environment  for  investments.  In  this  context,  the  ex-ante  conditionalities  are 
the key tool which helped the Commission to check the adequate preparedness of 
this  environment  and  to  put  in  place  the  adequate  measures  to  improve  it  when 
necessary: 

For financial instruments, the CPR includes the ex-ante assessment requirement, 
which allows the MAs to have a deep understanding of the market failures and to 
make an assessment of the added value of the proposed financial instruments. 

The  CPR  opened  the  possibility  to  set-up  financial  instruments  for  all  thematic 
objectives  and  at  different  levels  (e.g.  national,  regional,  cross-border  and  even 
contributions to financial instruments set up at Union level). If MAs have difficulty 
in  implementing  new  or  innovative  FIs  in  one  of  these  thematic  objectives  or  at 
particular  level,  the  Commission  recommends  the  use  of  the  off-the-shelf 

57 

 
 
 
 
instruments  designed  to  achieve  the  specific  objectives  set  out  under  the  relevant 
priority. 

In  addition,  the  CPR  makes  possible  the  establishment  of  joint  instruments 
blending resources from ESIF and other sources from the EU budget. 

The Commission also provides assistance and advisory services to Member States 
in  the  area  of  FEIs.  A  dedicated  technical  advisory  platform  (fi-compass)  was 
established  early  in  2015  in  partnership  of  the  four  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  DGs  with  the  EIB.  Fi-compass  is  designed  to  support  ESIF 
managing  authorities,  EaSI  (Employment  and  Social  Innovation  programme) 
microfinance providers and other interested parties, by providing practical know-
how  and  learning  tools  on  financial  instruments.  These  will  include  “how-to” 
manuals, factsheets for quick reference, e-learning modules, face-to-face training 
seminars and networking events for the exchange of good practices across Member 
States. 

93. 

(§  266  -  2014/PAR/0330)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  FEI  could 
substantially contribute to efficiency, effectiveness and economy in ESIF utilisation, 
if they are wisely implemented, as they are naturally focused to reach a result, or to 
generate performance; calls on the Commission also to reflect this kind of benefit in 
the Union budgetary expenditure policy. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has already undertaken actions in this respect. 

In  2014-2020,  a  stronger  and  more  performance  oriented  framework  was  put  in 
place  to  allow  for  a  more  widespread  use  of  financial  instruments  (loans, 
guarantees,  equity)  in  policy  areas  where  the  projects  generate  revenue  or 
significant  cost  savings.  This  included  the  expansion  of  the  scope  for  use  of 
financial instruments to deliver all thematic objectives. Given the revolving nature 
of the support provided by financial instruments, their support is more sustainable 
than grants. 

This  trend  was  confirmed  in  the  Investment  Plan  communication,  in  which  the 
Commission  strongly  encourages  the  wider  use  of  financial  instruments  in  ESI 
Funds instead of traditional grants, in areas such as SME support, CO2 reduction, 
ICT,  sustainable  transport,  R&D&I,  energy  and  resource  efficiency.  As  noted  in 
the Investment Plan, it is expected that over the 2014-2020 period, the ESI funds 
committed to financial instruments would have a direct leverage effect generating 
additional  investments  between  EUR  40  and  70  billion  and  with  an  even  larger 
multiplier effect in the real economy. 

Current estimates and plans show that around EUR 21 billion of ERDF, ESF and 
CF  will  be  devoted  to  financial  instruments  in  the  new  period,  aspiration  for 
doubling  compared  to  the  2007-2013  programming  period.  It  is  estimated  that 
about  12%  of  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  allocation  will  be  delivered  through 
financial instruments. 

94. 

(§ 272 - 2014/PAR/0331) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to look 
at successful simplification procedures recognised by the Court, such as in Horizon 

58 

 
 
 
2020 and the simplification of indirect costs with flat rate reimbursements, in order 
to generalise this approach to other policy areas. 

Commission's response: 

In  the  context  of  the  next  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  the  Commission 
intends  to  propose  additional  simplification  measures.  Simplified  reimbursement 
through unit costs, lump sums or flat rates or reimbursement on the basis of pre-
defined  results  should  not  be  mandatory  but  an  additional  option  for  an 
Authorising  officer  to  be  used  where  possible  and  appropriate  with  regard  to  the 
types of beneficiaries and projects to be supported. 

95. 

(§  273  -  2014/PAR/0332)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
assess or review the possibility of extending the system of payment for entitlements, 
which leads to fewer errors than the cost reimbursement system – which is the cause 
of most errors – relative to other programmes. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission always assesses the best cost system to be implemented within any 
of its funding schemes. This has again been done within the setup of the new MFF 
and  will  be  considered,  if  needed,  within  the  simplification  package.  The 
Commission notably considers that the potentially negative impact of complicated 
eligibility  rules  on  the  risk  of  error  for  reimbursement  schemes  is  significantly 
mitigated  when  simplified  cost  options  (SCOs)  are  used  and  has  already  invested 
significant  efforts  to  expand  the  use  of  SCOs  in  cohesion  policy  and  notably  the 
ESF. The Commission will also continue to support Member States' efforts in this 
context.  In  parallel  the  Commission  launched  an  important  exercise  on 
simplification  whose  results  will  be  addressed  in  the  framework  of  the  "omnibus 
regulation"  and  the  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  the  use  of  simplified 
forms of grants (unit costs, lump sums, flat rates) is facilitated by: 1)  lowering of 
the level of authorisation (from the Commission to the Authorising officer), 2) by 
allowing for the use of expert judgement when setting-up unit costs in case where 
sufficient data are missing, 3) by expressly providing the possibility to use a lump 
sum covering an entire action ("single lump sum"). In addition, a new category of 
Union contribution is added as an option where the financing is not linked to costs 
of  the  relevant  operations  but  rather  based  either:  i)  on  the  fulfilment  of  certain 
conditions ex ante as set out in the basic act [or Commission Decisions] and/or ii) 
on  the  achievement  of  results  measured  through  performance  indicators.  The 
proposals above (increased use of SCOs, single lump sums and new contributions) 
will offer the possibility to all policy areas to switch from a reimbursement scheme 
to  a  real  "entitlement  scheme",  where  appropriate,  as  a  means  of  simplification. 
Entitlements  programmes  already  exist  today  by  direct  aid  to  farmers,  budget 
support in the area of external aid or certain student and research fellowships. 

96. 

(§  274  -  2014/PAR/0333)  The  European  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  to 
monitor how the Member States are improving the rules on auditing and controls in 

59 

 
 
 
 
order  to  create  a  common  base  to  share  best  practices  in  particular  on  public 
procurement and fight against fraud and corruption. 

Commission's response: 

For Cohesion policy, the audit strategy has been based on risks for the 2007-2013 
programming  period  to  target  the  Commission's  limited  audit  resources  to  the 
high-risk programmes, audit authorities or programme authorities. 

The  audit  activity  reported  in  DG  REGIO's  and  DG  EMPL's  Annual  Activity 
Reports  for  2014  show  how  the  Commission  monitors  the  improvement  of  the 
Member States' rules on auditing and control as regards legality and regularity of 
expenditure. Such monitoring will continue in the years ahead taking into account 
the changes in the 2014-2020 Regulations. 

Moreover,  the  monitoring  of  Member  States'  audit  procedures  and  their 
improvement is also done via regular technical meetings and "Homologue Group" 
meetings  with  all  audit  authorities.  These  meetings  aim  at  exchanging  best 
practice, sharing  standards  and developing  over  the  years of  a homogenous high 
level of auditing. 

As regards sharing best practices on public procurement, the Commission services 
launched  in  January  2014  a  public  procurement  action  plan,  that  contains  14 
actions  amongst  which:  a  peer-to-peer  exchange  of  expertise  between  national 
authorities so as to provide targeted support for specific Member states to assist by 
learning  by  doing;  the  update  of  the  auditor's  checklists  for  public  procurement 
errors based on changes introduced by the new public procurement directives. 

Concerning the fight against fraud and corruption, the Joint Anti-Fraud Strategy 
was  adopted  in  December  2015  for  a  longer  period  (2015-2020)  aligned  with  the 
timeframe covered by the single audit strategy of DGs Regional and Urban policy, 
Employment, Inclusion and Social affairs, Maritime Affairs. It contains an action 
plan  setting  out  the  anti-fraud  activities  to  be  carried  out  by  these  DGs  in  close 
collaboration  with  OLAF  in  the  period.  This  strategy  covers  also  anti-corruption 
actions of the 3 DGs. 

The  Guidance  to  Member  States  entitled  "Fraud  Risk  Assessment  and  Effective 
and  Proportionate  Anti-Fraud  Measures" 
(ref.  EGESIF_14-0021-00  of 
16/06/2014)  was  presented  in  various  anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption  seminars  in 
Member  States  (2014  and  2015),  covering  the  new  anti-fraud  requirements  for 
2014-2020. 

During 2015, missions were carried out together with DG Employment, Inclusion 
and  Social  Affairs  that  aimed  at  explaining  the  concept  of  the  ARACHNE  Risk 
Scoring  Tool  to  the  national  authorities  (managing  authorities,  certifying 
authorities, audit authorities). The use of this tool is promoted by the Commission 
to contribute to meeting the new anti-fraud requirements for 2014-2020. 

97. 

(§  275  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0334)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
(a) have identified evidence on the impact of ERDF, ESF and CF interventions of the 
2007 – 2013 period for fulfilment of the Europe 2020 Strategy targets. 

Commission's response: 

For the 2007-2013 programming period, policy performance is monitored through 
the yearly reporting on programme output indicators. As far as DG Regional and 
Urban  Policy  is  concerned,  global  data  on  achievement  is  reported  in its  Annual 
Activity  Reports  under  the  form  of  key  performance  indicators  which  reflect  the 
main investment priorities for smart inclusive and sustainable growth. 

The ERDF/CF ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 programming period, is being 
finalised  with  a  Commission  Staff  Working  document  planned  for  adoption  in 
September  2016.  The  ex-post  covers  several  thematic  topics  in  all Member  States 
that  are  directly  or  indirectly  relevant  for  the  objectives  of  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy and will provide further information about policy achievements. 

DG Regional and Urban Policy and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
are reporting as part of their AAR on their contributions to the achievement of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy. 

98. 

(§  275  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0335)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(b)  ensure  the  new  Union  priorities  are  much  more  closely  interlinked  with  the 
cohesion policy. 

Commission's response: 

During  2014  and  2015  the  Commission  ensured  that  all  Member  States' 
Partnership  Agreements  and  operational  programmes  took  account  of  EU2020 
objectives  where  relevant.  This  alignment  work  was  carried  out  in  coordination 
with all services concerned by the ESI Funds common provisions regulation. 

The  Commission  is  implementing  the  legislative  framework  put  in  place  by  the 
Parliament and the Council in order to fulfil its reporting obligations in 2017 with 
regard  to  the  contribution  of  the  ESI  funds  to  the  achievement  of  the  Union 
Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Member States will report on 
their  contribution  to  the  EU2020  strategy  in  progress  reports  in  2017  and  2019. 
Based  on  these,  the  Commission  will  summarize  this  information  in  its  strategic 
reports to the Parliament and the Council. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Commission  will  make  full  use  of  the  regulatory  tools 
available to better monitor  and report on the links between the EU 2020 objectives 
and  the  partnership  agreements  and    operational  programmes'  achievements 
through:  monitoring  of  implementation,  reporting  on  achievements  under  the 
thematic objectives, stronger result orientation with common output indicators and 
specific output and result indicators, summary of Annual Implementation Reports 
and synthesis of Member States' evaluations, strategic reports. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
99. 

(§  275  (c)  -  2014/PAR/0336)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(c) continue in its already started simplification process, including the promotion of 
SCO. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts this recommendation. 

In  order  to  support  the  take-up  of  SCOs  by  Member  States,  the  Commission 
developed  guidance  documents  on  SCOs.  The  first  reference  document  was 
finalised in January 2010: the COCOF note on Simplified Cost Options setting out 
examples  on  how  to  develop,  introduce  and  make  use  of  the  different  types  of 
SCOs.  This  guidance  was  updated  by  the  EGESIF  guidance  note  on  SCOs  in 
September  2014.  Both  of  these  notes  were  translated  in  all  EU  languages. 
Moreover, two  specific  guidance  notes  were  developed for  Article  14(1)  ESF  and 
Joint  Action  Plans  in  June  2015.  In  order  to  illustrate  some  good  practices  of 
SCOs,  a  case  study  on  the  implementation  of  SCOs  in  the  ESF  in  Italy  was 
published in February 2014. 

DG EMPL has been promoting the use of SCOs since several years. These efforts 
have recently been summarized in a "Report on the implementation of SCOs in the 
ESF"  which  was  sent  to  the  ECA,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in 
November 2015. The report shows that there was a relatively low uptake of the use 
of  SCOs  in  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  but  that  Member  States  expect 
their use of SCOs to significantly increase in the 2014-2020 period building on the 
new  possibilities  offered  by  the  2014-2020  regulatory  framework  and  the 
experience acquired. 

DG EMPL will continue to strongly support Member States in their efforts. This in 
particular  includes  the  involvement  of  the  auditors  in  the  hands  on  support  (as 
requested  by  the  Parliament)  during  the  development  of  SCO-methodologies 
ultimately leading to the proposal of a delegated act (in accordance with Art. 14(1) 
of  the  ESF-Regulation);  currently  4  Member  States  are  covered  by  such  a 
delegated  act  (Sweden,  France,  Czech  Republic  and  Belgium).  Other  member 
states  (Slovakia, Italy, Malta,  Germany  (Bremen),  Romania are  in the  process of 
developing their SCO or have submitted a proposal for an Art 14.1 application. 

Additionally, the DG EMPL is participating in specific seminars and workshops in 
Member  States.  In  2016,  seminars  have  already  taken  place  in  Germany 
(February),  Romania  (April)  and  further  events  have  to  date  been  scheduled  in 
Croatia and Malta. 

The Commission will publish the next follow-up report end of 2017. 

100. 

(§  275  (d)  -  2014/PAR/0337)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(d) further support synergies within the cohesion policy itself as well as between the 
cohesion policy and other Union budgetary interventions. 

Commission's response: 

Building synergies between the ESI Funds for the 2014-2020 period is a priority. 
The  objective  is  to  optimise  the  impact  of  EU  funds  on  EU  priorities  for  growth 
and jobs. 

A  Common  Strategic  Framework  (Annex  I)  is  embedded  in  the  Common 
Provisions Regulation which is the basis for better coordination between the ESI 
Funds  and  also  other  instruments.  In  particular,  it  provides  for  effective 
coordination and complementary between Member States in the use of multi-funds 
programmes.  On  this  basis  guidance  was  prepared  for  beneficiaries.  It  gives  an 
overview  of  complementary  instruments  available  at  EU  level  for  each  thematic 
objective  identified  in  the  ESIF  regulation,  with  detailed  sources  of  information 
and  examples  of  good  practices.  Guidance  for  policy-makers  and  implementing 
bodies  is  also  available,  for  example  'Enabling  synergies  between  ESI  Funds, 
Horizon  2020  and  other  research,  innovation  and  competitiveness-related  Union 
programme'. 

Several  initiatives  took  place  such  as  the  pilot  project  'Stairway  to  excellence' 
which  provides  assistance  to  Member  States  in  developing  and  exploiting  the 
synergies between ESI Funds, Horizon 2020 and other EU programmes. 

In  the  particular  field  of  research  and  innovation,  the  Commission  gave  a  clear 
mandate  to  its  services  to  maximise  synergies  between  Horizon  2020  programme 
and the ESI Funds. In that context was developed the initiative 'Seal to excellence' 
in  collaboration  with  Member  States.  This  quality  certificate  will  be  awarded  to 
high quality proposals form the Horizon 2020 programme which could not funded 
by lack of available resources under this programme, but which could benefit from 
the  support  of  ESI  Funds.  The  pilot  phase  will  be  addressed  to  the  'SME 
instrument'  targeting  small  and  medium-sized  businesses  and  offering  business 
innovation grants. 

101. 

(§  276  -  2014/PAR/0338)  The  European  Parliament  endorses  the  Commission's 
reservations  in  the  area  of  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion  and  asks  to  be 
informed  about  the  development  of  the  programmes  concerned  in  the  Commission 
report following up Parliaments discharge decision. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  put  in  place  specific  arrangements  for  regularly  reviewing 
the  actions  taken  by  services  to  solve  the  underlying  problems  having  led  to 
reservations in their annual activity reports. 

Since 2014 the state of play of the reservations in the area of economic, social and 
territorial  cohesion  is  also  shared  with  the  Parliament  (Committee  on  Budgetary 
Control  –  CONT) 
the  relevant 
Commissioners in the framework of the Commission Discharge. 

the  hearings  with 

to  prepare 

in  order 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  Parliament  is  kept  informed  of  future 
developments  in  relation  to  the  reservations  in  the  area  of  economic,  social  and 
territorial cohesion. 

102. 

(§  277  -  2014/PAR/0339)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
continue  to  rigorously  address  the  weaknesses  of  "first  level  checks"  in  Member 
States, as some of the most important errors are generated at this level. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has taken and is continuously taking the recommended actions. 

Management  and  control  systems  can  only  work  if  Member  States  do  their  work 
properly. Therefore the Commission has a role to supervise the good functioning 
of  Member  States  systems.  In  that  context,  DG  Regional  and  Urban  policy  has 
carried  out  between  2010  and  end  2015  a  total  of  143  targeted  audits  on 
management  verifications of  88 high  risk programmes in 19 Member  States; DG 
Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs carried out between 2013 and 2015 26 
audit  missions  on  the  specific  issue  of  management  verifications  in  15  Member 
States. These audits include visits at the level of the beneficiaries, on the spot (62 
operations audited on the spot in 2014 under such audits). For 66% of these audits 
performed  in  high  risk  OPs  the  Commission  identified  significant  deficiencies  in 
the  first  level  controls.  In  58%  of  the  audits  the  deficiencies  concerned  public 
procurement. 

When  the  Commission  identifies  deficiencies  in  the  management  verifications  it 
stops  the  payments.  Interruptions  and  suspensions  are  incentives  for  Member 
States to have good systems in place and to timely take remedial actions, including 
financial  corrections.  The  Commission  uses  these  legal  tools  consistently  and  as 
soon  as  serious  deficiencies  in  management  verifications  are  identified.  In  case 
identified deficiencies have not been mitigated at the end of the reporting year, the 
Commission issues a reservation for the concerned operational programme in the 
AAR. The implementation of preventive and corrective measures, such as remedial 
actions  plans,  interruptions,  suspensions  and  financial  corrections,  has  led  to 
improvements in the systems of programmes put under reservation. EU payments 
are  resumed  only  where  there  is  sufficient  and  reliable  evidence  that  weaknesses 
have been remedied. 

The  Commission  carries  out  a  continuous  supervision  of  high  risk  programmes 
after  the  implementation  of  the  remedial  actions.  This  supervision  is  meant  to 
ensure that the management and control systems of programmes do not deteriorate 
again,  due  for  example  to  staff  turnover  and  staff  restrictions  in  public 
administrations. 

On the  preventive side, the  Commission  provides  the  programme  authorities with 
the  necessary  guidance  (updated  guidance  for  2014-2020  provided  in  September 
2015)  and  targeted  trainings  for  each  of  the  implementation  phases  of  the 
programmes,  and  on  the  verification  of  public  procurement  or  State  aid  issues. 
Commission  checklists  are  shared  with  managing  and  audit  authorities.  Sharing 
good practices between programmes is promoted. The new Peer 2 Peer instrument 

64 

 
 
 
available  to  managing  authorities  for  exchange  of  expertise  will  further  help  on 
this. 

Reinforced procedures are foreseen in the regulatory framework for the 2014-2020 
programming  period.  Management  verifications  and  controls  (including  on-the-
spot  checks)  will  have  to  be  carried  out  before  the  annual  certification  to  the 
Commission of programme accounts and submission of management declarations 
and the annual summary of controls and audits by the managing authorities. Audit 
authorities will provide an audit opinion and a control report, which will include 
the  residual  level  of  error  after  correction.  The  Commission  may  impose  net 
financial  corrections  to  the  programme  if  serious  deficiencies  in  management 
verifications  remain  undetected  or  uncorrected  by  the  Member  State  before 
submission  of  the  accounts.  The  Commission  considers  that  these  reinforced 
control procedures will result in lasting reductions of the error rate. 

Moreover, the Commission has simplified the rules for the 2014-2020 period. The 
Commission  has  reviewed  the  public  procurement  rules  and  has  issued  new  and 
clearer rules for State aid.  Member States are required to take up simplifications 
offered  for  the  new  programmes:  i)  avoiding  'gold  plating'  (adding  national 
complexity in the  eligibility rules); ii) ensuring efficient  –  not  necessarily more  – 
controls through continuous training; iii) ensuring that expertise is retained in the 
administration, avoiding unnecessary staff turnover. 

All these measures have the potential to enhance the quality and reliability of first-
level checks. 

103. 

(§  278  -  2014/PAR/0340)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
report on Member States' uptake of the SCO in the report following up Parliament's 
2014 Commission discharge decision. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts this recommendation. 

DG EMPL has been promoting the use of SCOs since several years. These efforts 
have recently been summarized in a "Report on the implementation of SCOs in the 
ESF"  which  was  sent  to  the  ECA,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in 
November 2015. The report shows that there was a relatively low uptake of the use 
of  SCOs  in  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  but  that  Member  States  expect 
their use of SCOs to significantly increase in the 2014-2020 period building on the 
new  possibilities  offered  by  the  2014-2020  regulatory  framework  and  the 
experience acquired. 

The Commission will publish the next follow-up report end of 2017. 

104. 

(§  279  -  2014/PAR/0341)  The  European  Parliament  agrees  with  the  Court  that  the 
Commission should extend to all Member States its assessment of the reliability of 
the financial corrections reported by the certifying authorities and its impact on the 
Commission’s  calculation  of  the  ‘residual  error  rate’;  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
report on the results when following up Parliament's discharge decision. 

65 

 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

Response published in the ECA 2014 report, recommendation 6: 

Recommendation  6:  the  Commission  accepts  this  recommendation  that  it  is 
already implementing in line with previous recommendations of the  external  and 
internal auditors in that regard. 

The  Commission  has  widened  the  scope  of  its  assessment  and  now  performs 
consistency checks and desk reviews on the financial correction statements for all 
Member  States  and  operational  programmes  whose  results  are  reflected  in  the 
calculation  of  the  cumulative  residual  risk.  In  addition,  it  carries  out  a  risk 
assessment annually to decide which audit missions are to be carried out in which 
Member  States  to  obtain  reasonable  assurance,  in  this  case,  of  the  financial 
corrections reporting. 

In the frame of this risk assessment the Commission also takes account of the need 
to conduct on-the-spot audits in all Member States with a material impact on the 
calculation of the cumulative residual risk, by the end of the programming period. 

105. 

(§ 280 - 2014/PAR/0342) The European Parliament shares the Court's view that the 
Commission  should  further  strengthen  the  control  system  for  audit  authorities  and 
report on the results when following up Parliament's discharge decision. 

Commission's response: 

Concerning  the  verification  of  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  the  information 
provided in the annual control reports, the Commission is already requesting and 
obtaining additional specific information from audit authorities each time it deems 
it  necessary,  in  particular  in  case  of  doubts,  and  by  carrying  out  desk  or  on  the-
spot  review  of  annual  control  reports.  As  an  example,  DG  Regional  and  Urban 
Policy  has  foreseen  in  its  updated  strategy  for  2007-2013  to  launch  reinforced 
‘pre-annual  control  report’  missions  to  prepare  for  the  review  of  annual  control 
reports  provided  in  December  2015  for  the  last  time  and  of  closure  declarations 
and  opinions  planned  for  March  2017.  Furthermore,  both  DG  Regional  and 
Urban  Policy  and  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  intend  to 
continue covering a significant number of annual control reports through on-the-
spot fact finding missions, on a risk basis. 

As regards the appropriate coverage by audit authorities of checks of compliance 
with  state  aid  and  public  procurement  rules,  the  Commission  is  already 
implementing it in the context of its audit enquiries concerning the review of the 
work  of  audit  authorities.  It  will  also  ensure,  where  necessary,  that  reinforced 
checklists  are  used  for  the  remainder  of  the  2007-2013  programming  period  and 
for  the  next  one.  It  has  circulated  to  all  audit  authorities  updated/revised  audit 
checklists on public procurement and state aid in the technical meeting held with 
all national audit authorities in December 2015. 

As  regards  the  request  to  audit  authorities  to  certify  the  accuracy  of  financial 
corrections  reported  by  certifying  authorities,  for  the  2014-2020  programming 
period,  the  audit  authorities  are  requested  each  year  to  issue  an  audit  opinion 
based on a residual rate of error in the certified accounts. For the revision of the 

66 

 
 
 
calculation  of  this  rate,  audit  authorities  have  to  check  the  accuracy  of  the 
financial  corrections  reported  by  the  certifying  authorities  during  the  period  for 
each operational programme and as reported in the certified accounts. 

All related actions are also reported in the respective Annual Activity Report of DG 
Regional and Urban Policy and DG Employment and Social Affairs. 

106. 

(§  281  -  2014/PAR/0343)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  DG  REGIO  and  DG 
EMPL to publish, in their respective annual activity reports, their contributions to the 
preparation of the Commission's CSRs and on how they support Member States for 
implementing  them,  as  these  recommendations  should  demonstrate  how  the  DGs 
facilitate  Member  States'  progress  towards  achieving  the  Europe  2020  Strategy 
objectives. 

Commission's response: 

In  accordance  with  Article  66.9  of  the  FR,  the  Annual  Activity  Report  (AAR) 
should  contain  financial  and  management  information  in  relation  to  the 
operations performed by the AOD as well as the assessment of the extent to which 
the operational expenditure made has contributed to the policy achievements and 
generated  EU  added  value.  Therefore,  the  AAR  is  not  to  report  on  the  DGs 
contribution to the Country Specific Recommendations in the European Semester. 
Nevertheless, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and DG Regional and 
Urban Policy will continue to provide information in their annual activity reports 
where relevant  on the  main actions they have undertaken to  help  Member States 
implement  the  CSRs,  such  as  promoting  an  adequate  targeting  of  ESIF  funds 
through  (re)programming  and  conditionality,  promoting  good  practices  via 
programmes  such  as  EaSI  (Employment  and  Social  Innovation  programme)  as 
regards employment and social inclusion, or supporting the social dialogue. 

Natural resources 

107. 

(§  283  -  2014/PAR/0344)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
ensure  that  no  EU  funds  are  made  available  to  directly  or  indirectly  support 
bullfighting. 

Commission's response: 

108. 

The  CAP  does  not  provide  for  support  measures  linked  to  raising  animals  for 
bullfighting, so there are no funds directly linked to that activity. 

(§  287  and  §  291  -  2014/PAR/0345)  The  European  Parliament  stresses  that  the 
problem  of  efficient  allocation  consists  also  in  a  limited  reliability  and  the  LPIS 
database which is not always up to date; notes with satisfaction that the weaknesses 
in the LPIS had been addressed in all the audited Member States but deplores the fact 
that  some  important  weaknesses  still  persist  in  some  Member  States;  asks  the 
Commission to use the reinforced instruments it has under the new CAP legislation 
where there are significant and persistent deficiencies in national systems (reference 
made  to  See  Article  41  (2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013on  the  financing, 
management  and  monitoring  of  the  common  agricultural  policy  and  repealing 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 
814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 Reduction and suspension of 
monthly and interim payments). 

Commission's response: 

In  relation to  LPIS,  the  Court  of Auditors  states in  its  2014  Annual  report  (para 
7.40) that "all the paying agencies examined have, under the close guidance and 
active  supervision  of  the  Commission,  taken  remedial  action  which  overall  led to 
an improvement in the situation" and that when weaknesses persist they do so "to 
a lesser degree". This is a clear indication that the remedial actions implemented 
by the national authorities did work even though improvements are still necessary 
in some Member States. 

In 2015 further progress has been made in the Member States implementing action 
plans related to LPIS updates. 

The Commission follows closely the implementation of  the action plans  and uses 
the  reinforced  instruments  at  its  disposal  to  protect  the  EU  budget  whenever 
necessary.  DG  AGRI  reports  on  net  financial  corrections,  suspensions  and 
reductions in payments in its Annual Activity Report. 

109. 

(§  289  -  2014/PAR/0346)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  provide  guidance  to  Member  States  so  as  to  address  these  problems 
(imperfect  Member  State  action  plans  for  rural  development)  and  contribute  to 
satisfactory decisions by them. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is committed to provide guidance to help Member States prevent 
and detect errors. 

First  of  all,  emphasis  is  put  on  preventing  errors.  All  measures  programmed  for 
the  2014-2020  period  have  been  assessed  in  the  light  of  their  verifiability  and 
controllability. A joint statement by the paying agency and the managing authority 
has been included in all the rural development programmes approved. If a specific 
operation turns out to be difficult to verify or control, the Commission requests its 
modification in the RDP, in line with Article 62(2) of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013 
(EAFRD). 

The Commission also encourages Member States to make full use of all simplified 
costs options, e.g. lump sum payments and standard costs, which are less prone to 
errors than payments linked to eligible costs. 

As  regards  implementation,  in  2015,  dedicated  workshops  and  seminars  were 
organised  on  issues  related  to  financial  error  in  the  management  of  Rural 
Development  Programmes.  The  target  group  for  those  activities  are  programme 
managers,  national  rural  networks  (NRNS)  and  network  support  units  (NSUs), 
and stakeholders of Community led local development (CLLD) and Leader. 

68 

 
 
 
 
In addition, regular  discussions  take place with Member States  authorities in  the 
Rural Development Committee (RDC) meetings and with stakeholders represented 
in  the  Civil  Dialogue  Group  for  Rural  Development  (CDG-RD).  Simplified  cost 
options, anti-fraud issues (artificial creations of funding, irregularities, etc.), IACS 
and  LPIS  and  the  guidance  document  on  controls  and  penalties  for  rural 
development  and  the  Q&A  table  addressing  Member  States'  questions  on  control 
and penalties were discussed. A guidance document on most common irregularities 
in  public  procurement  has  been  presented  in  the  Expert  Group  of  the  European 
Structural and Investment Funds and in the Rural Development Committee. 

110. 

(§  291  - 2014/PAR/0347)  The European Parliament notes  with  satisfaction  that the 
weaknesses in  the  LPIS were  addressed in  all the Member States audited;  however 
deplores that some important weaknesses still persist in Greece, Spain and Italy; asks 
the  Commission  to  use  the  reinforced  instruments  it  has  under  the  new  CAP 
legislation where there are significant and persistent deficiencies in national systems. 

Commission's response: 

As  explained  in  the  reply  to  written  question  55  to  Commissioner  Hogan  in  the 
2014 discharge, the Commission worked closely with these three Member States. 

In  Greece,  the  area  recorded  as  eligible  in  LPIS  was  updated  and  so  the  eligible 
permanent  pasture  area  was  reduced  from  3.6  million  hectares  in  2012  to  1.5 
million hectares in claim year 2014. At the same time, when the Commission found 
that Greece did  not meet its commitments  from  the  agreed action plan to  remedy 
the  situation  for  claim  year  2014,  the  Commission  reduced  the  payments 
(Commission  Decision  C(2014)8997)  under  Article  41(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1306/2013. 

For  Spain  the  action  plan  prepared  in  2013  is  being  implemented  by  the 
authorities.  The  eligible  permanent  pasture  area  was  reduced  from  18.5  million 
hectares in 2013 to 6.4 million hectares in 2016. 

As regards Italy, a reservation was introduced in the 2015 AAR due to high error 
rate reported in its statistics. It is not linked with issues related to LPIS data. 

111. 

(§  299  -  2014/PAR/0348)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  to  collect  relevant  and  reliable  data  on  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of the measures funded, in order to manage the spending by results. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission already collects the data and reports on the results and progress 
towards  the  achievement  of  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  CAP  in 
Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  Annual  Activity 
Reports. 

In the 2015 Annual Activity report, the performance part was further developed to 
include  more  details  on  the  different  measures  funded  by  the  CAP  and  on  the 
achievements of the 3 CAP objectives as defined in the regulations. 

69 

 
 
 
 
112. 

(§ 303 - 2014/PAR/0349) The European Parliament is particularly concerned by the 
cases  of  suspected  intentional  circumvention  of  the  eligibility  criteria;  notes  that 
those cases have been forwarded to OLAF and asks OLAF to report on the result of 
its investigations in the follow-up report of the Commission. 

113. 

Commission's response: 

The  incoming  information  of  possible  investigative  interest  transmitted  by  the 
Court  of  Auditors  is  always  carefully  assessed  by  OLAF.  From  OLAF's  records 
there  are  four  instances  of  suspected  intentional  circumvention  of  the  eligibility 
criteria  identified  and  transmitted  to  OLAF  by  the  Court  of  Auditors.  In  one 
instance, OLAF opened an investigation and this has been closed in the meantime.  
In two instances investigations have been opened and are currently ongoing, and 
finally one instance was dismissed following the selection process. The Court has 
been duly informed in all cases. 

(§  313  -  2014/PAR/0350)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  the  declaration  of 
assurance given by the Director General of DG AGRI includes three reservations in 
respect of 2014 expenditure in shared management with the Member States and one 
reservation  in  respect  of  indirect  management  concerning  in  total  EUR  1  446,9 
million (EUR 1 451,9 million in 2013); observes that the highest amount in risk in 
2014  is  under  ABB03  (Direct  payments);  welcomes  this  intensive  work  by  the 
Directorate-General  to  monitor  and  correct  Member  State  authorities'  data  ,  as 
required  by  Article  66  of  the  Financial  Regulation;  points  out  that  the  weaknesses 
and corrections in the national systems thus revealed represent a substantial part of 
the data on which the declaration of assurance is based; calls on the Commission to 
further improve the data forming the basis for this declaration of assurance. 

Commission's response: 

The  declaration  of  assurance  is  based  on  solid  methodology  and  evidence;  the 
Commission  adjusts  the  error  rates  reported  by  Member  States.  From  2015 
financial  year,  work  of  the  Certification  Bodies  adds  to  the  exercise.  When  CB's 
work  is  considered  reliable,  its  opinion  will  be  used  and  will  reinforce  the 
assurance. 

114. 

(§  315  -  2014/PAR/0351)  The  European  Parliament  stresses  that  according  to  the 
Commission, agricultural income per worker is positively influenced by the decline 
in  the  agricultural  workforce;  asks  the  Commission  to  report  systematically  on  this 
issue in its annual activity report (reference made to reply of Commissioner Hogan to 
written question .7 b. CONT hearing on 14 January 2016). 

Commission's response: 

As  pointed  out  in  the  reply  to  the  European  Parliament  written  questions,  the 
Commission  had  already  been  reporting  annually  on  the  distribution  of  direct 
support  to  farmers  and  submitting  this  information  to  the  European  Parliament. 
On  that  basis,  and  in  line  with  the  commitment  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission  reported  on  the  developments  in  the  distribution  of  support  in 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development 2015 AAR, pages 17-
20.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  prepare  annually  a  detailed  report  on  the 
distribution of direct support to farmers. 

115. 

(§  318  - 2014/PAR/0352)  The European  Parliament asks DG AGRI to  report in its 
annual activity report 2015 on a broad mix of economic and environmental indicators 
giving  a  well-balanced  overview  of  the  state  of  Union  agriculture  and  its  broader 
context, to enable the co-legislators to better assess the performance of the CAP and 
engage in an informed reflection on its future orientation. 

Commission's response: 

Every year DG AGRI is striving to improve the reporting on the CAP presented in 
its AAR, in response to requests and expectations of different stakeholders, notably 
the European Parliament. 

Section  1 of the  DG AGRI 2015 Annual Activity Report is  structured around the 
three  "CAP  general  objectives".  For  each  of  these  objectives,  the  key  quantified 
facts  are  presented  together,  before  an  explanation  of  significance,  cause  and 
general  context  is  offered.  This  approach  is  intended  to  give  the  reader  a  rapid, 
easily accessible overview of the essential information for each objective. 

Long term trends in the key indicators for the CAP are the most useful instrument 
for the stakeholders of the CAP to properly assess the outcome of the policy on its 
objectives and to anticipate arising challenges for the policy. This is because of the 
long  lag  effects  of  the  policy  and  its  interaction  with  the  sector  and  the 
environment.  With  regard  to  the  various  indicators  presented,  the  most  recent 
available values are used. 

116. 

(§ 319 - 2014/PAR/0353) The European Parliament asks DG AGRI to report on the 
trend  in  the  distribution  of  agricultural  income  support  in  its  annual  report  and  in 
particular  to  give  details  of  the  effects  of  the  new  forms  of  support,  such  as  the 
redistributive payment, introduced by the 2013 CAP reform. 

Commission's response: 

In response to the European Parliament request, DG AGRI included in the 2015 
AAR a dedicated box entitled "Trends in the distribution of direct payments" (page 
18  of  the  2015  AAR).  As  stated  in  that  analysis,  the  2013  CAP  reform  will  be 
implemented as from 2015, so its effects will become apparent in subsequent years. 
Therefore, DG AGRI will continue to provide updated information on the impact 
of the new forms of support, when more data has been gathered. 

117. 

(§  325  -  2014/PAR/0354)  The  European  Parliament  regrets  that  the  Court  detected 
grave deficiencies as to the revolving and leverage effects of the funding's facilities 
in rural development and concluded that FEI had been unsuccessful during the period 
2007-2013;  requests  that  the  Commission  implement  measurements  to  provide 
sufficient incentives for beneficiaries to allow for substantial added value (reference 

71 

 
 
 
 
made  to  European  Court  of  Auditors’  Special  Report  No  5/2015:  Are  financial 
instruments a successful and promising tool in rural development area). 

Commission's response: 

The Court of Auditors' Special Report related to the 2007 – 2013 period. Financial 
Instruments  receiving  support  under 
the  2014-2020  rural  development 
programmes must comply with the respective provisions  of  Regulation 1303/2013 
(CPR), including the ex-ante assessment in relation to the financial instrument. 

The provisions have been clarified in the new legal framework and are subject to 
specific  guidance  for  Member  States  and  financial  institutions.  They  are  also 
covered by the Fi-compass (technical assistance platform on financial instruments) 
activities. 

The improved legal framework and guidance should help Member States optimise 
the use of FEI in the new programming period. 

118. 

(§ 326 - 2014/PAR/0355) The European Parliament asks the Commission to proceed 
rapidly  and  to  report  to  the  Parliament  on  this  issue  by  June  2016  (conformity 
clearance procedure to get detailed and precise information on the risk of a conflict 
of  interest  concerning  the  State  Agricultural  Intervention  Fund  in  the  Czech 
Republic);  asks  OLAF  to  report  without  delay  to  the  Parliament  on  its  decision 
whether or not to open a case. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  confirms  that  a  conformity  clearance  procedure  in  relation  to 
potential  non-compliance  of  the  Paying  Agency  CZ01,  State  Agricultural 
Intervention Fund (SAIF) with the accreditation criteria set out in Point 1(B)(v) of 
Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 has been opened 
on 8 January 2016. A bilateral meeting between the Commission services and the 
competent  Czech  authorities  has  taken  place.  The  Czech  authorities  have  been 
given the opportunity to further comment on the Commission's findings and have 
recently  submitted  their  comments.  The  Commission  will  evaluate  the  latest 
comments  and  will  take  a  decision  on  the  result  of  the  procedure  in  due  course. 
OLAF  is  not  involved  in  this  conformity  clearance  procedure.  As  a  general 
comment  while  there  are  ongoing  OLAF  investigations  in  relation  to  the  Czech 
Republic, these are not linked with the conformity clearance procedure matter in 
question. However, if at the end of this procedure information related to possible 
cases  of  fraud,  corruption  or  any  other  illegal  activity  affecting  the  financial 
interests  of  the  EU  becomes  available,  this  will  be  transmitted  to  OLAF  by  DG 
AGRI. 

119. 

(§  327  -  2014/PAR/0356)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  after  the  end  of  the 
eligibility  period  of  FEI,  resources  returned  to  the  funds  from  investments  can  be 
used  by  Member  States  and  become  national  resources  under  the  current  legal 
framework; regrets that by this means resources initially linked to specific financial 
instruments  can  be  eventually  transferred  to  different  sectors  and  individual 

72 

 
 
 
 
undertakings; calls on the Commission to increase the incentive for Member States to 
spend these resources within the same sector. 

Commission's response: 

Article 45 of Regulation 1303/2013 provides that Member States must ensure that 
after the end of the eligibility period, resources paid back to financial instruments 
are used in accordance with the aims of the programme, within the same financial 
instrument, or following the exit of those resources from the financial instruments, 
in  other  financial  instruments,  provided  that,  in  both  cases,  an  assessment  of 
market conditions demonstrates a continuing need for such investments. 

120. 

(§  329  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0357)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(a) take appropriate measures to strengthen the action plans in Member States so as 
to  identify  the  most  frequent  causes  of  error;  and  revise  the  strategy  for  rural 
development conformity audits. 

Commission's response: 

The action plans are closely followed by the Commission in terms of implementing 
the actions included therein and the calendar. 

Secondly, the Commission works with Member States upfront to prevent errors and 
management and control deficiencies from occurring.  This includes simplification 
and clarification of rules in cooperation with Member States at the very upstream 
level  of  law-making  activities.  For  each  of  the  3  ABB  activities,  i.e.  market 
measures,  direct  payments  and  rural  development,  Commission  staff  working 
documents on the assessment of main causes of errors that were published in 2014 
identified the main specific causes of errors and listed actions to be implemented. 

These  preventive  mechanisms  are  without  prejudice  to  the  possibilities  for  the 
Commission  to  provisionally  reduce  or  suspend  payments  to  Member  States  or 
definitively exclude irregular expenditure from EU financing when the conditions 
to do so are met. 

DG AGRI is taking into account the most common causes of errors when making 
its audit strategy. For example, public procurement breaches in rural development 
investment  measures  have  been  identified  as  an  important  source  of  errors  and 
audits dedicated to that issue are being carried out in several Member States. 

121. 

(§  329  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0358)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(b) analyse the impact of the CAP reform in terms of the performance of industry and 
its priorities as concerns Union budgetary support. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  CAP  already  delivers  on  well-defined 
objectives  and  works  as  a  catalyst,  delivering  results  in  areas  related  to  other 
policies.  Thanks  to  many  successive  reforms,  today's  CAP  is  a  market-oriented 
policy.  The  vast  majority  of  subsidies  have  been  decoupled  from  production, 
meaning that they don’t distort the market. 

The analytical work continues as the policy must adapt to the changing situation 
on  the  global  market  and  in  respect  of  different  consumer  needs.  Therefore,  the 
progress towards targets set for the priorities is constantly monitored and the most 
recent  achievements  are  presented in  the  Annual  Activity  Report.  The  2015  AAR 
includes  more  performance  reporting  and  this  trend  will  continue  in  the  coming 
years. 

122. 

(§  329  (c)  -  2014/PAR/0359)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(c)  facilitate  synergies  in  the  natural  resources  area  to  eliminate  its  current 
heterogeneity of supportive actions. 

Commission's response: 

The two pillars of the CAP work in a complementary manner. With the first pillar's 
direct  payments,  farmers  receive  a  basic  support  to  help  maintain  the  economic 
viability of their farm while at the same time complying with basic environmental 
safeguards  and  animal  welfare  standards.  They  may  wish  to  build  on  this  by 
applying for support related to investment, training, innovation, risk management 
tools or environmental measures, under the second Pillar. 

123. 

(§  329  (d)  -  2014/PAR/0360)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(d) report in detail to Parliament on the implementation of the capping in CAP direct 
payments Member State per Member State. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  consider  including  this  information  in  the  next  Directorate 
General for Agriculture and Rural Development Annual Activity Report. 

124. 

(§ 330 (a) - 2014/PAR/0361) The European Parliament requests that: 

(a) the Commission consider reporting, in the annual activity report of DG AGRI, on 
the trend in the distribution of agricultural income support. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  2015  DG  AGRI  Annual  Activity  Report  already  includes  the  requested 
information, please see pages 17 – 20 of the document. 

125. 

(§ 330 (c) - 2014/PAR/0362) The European Parliament requests that: 

(c)  the  Commission  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 of certification 
bodies. 

Commission's response: 

The equivalent recommendation was rejected in the 2013 discharge. 

The  Commission  would  like  to  reiterate  the  second  part  of  the  reply  to 
Recommendation nr 2014/PAR/0252: 

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. 

126. 

(§ 330 (d) - 2014/PAR/0363) The European Parliament requests that: 

(d) the Commission take appropriate measures to require that Member States' action 
plans  in  rural  development  include  remedial  actions  addressing  frequently-found 
cases of error. 

Commission's response: 

The  action  plans  for  reservations  concerning  rural  development  expenditure  are 
closely  followed  by  the  Commission.  The  action  plans  are  updated  by  Member 
States every six months and scrutinised by the Commission. The latter presents the 
synthesis and overall conclusions to managing authorities and paying agencies in 
a  dedicated  seminar  taking  place  twice  a  year.  Furthermore,  they  are  subject  to 
dedicated discussions in the annual review meetings with the managing authorities 
and the monitoring committees. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  would  like  to  emphasize,  that  often  action  plans  cannot 
immediately remedy the deficiencies. Their aim is to improve the management and 
control  systems  of  the  Paying  agencies  to  ensure  that  CAP  funds  are  properly 
managed in the future. 

127. 

(§ 330 (e) - 2014/PAR/0364) The European Parliament requests that: 

(e) the Commission revise the strategy for its rural development conformity audits so 
as to establish whether systems weaknesses found in one specific region, for Member 
States with regional programmes, are also present in the other regions, especially for 
investment measures. 

Commission's response: 

The Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development's audit strategy, 
based  on  risk  analysis  and  multiannual  audit  programme  allows  covering 
adequately the most risky expenditure areas. 

Whenever  possible  the  weaknesses  are  treated  in  a  systemic  way.  For  rural 
development, there are potentially 576 different audit fields (paying agency/control 
system pairs). It is not possible with reasonable resources to audit all audit fields. 
Because of the heterogeneity of the rural development measures, there is therefore 
both a limitation to the expenditure coverage of audits as well as to the scope of the 
eventual financial corrections which are applied. 

128. 

(§ 330 (f) - 2014/PAR/0365) The European Parliament requests that: 

(f)  the  Commission  ensure  that  the  new  assurance  procedure  on  legality  and 
regularity  of  transactions,  which  will  become  mandatory  as  of  the  financial  year 
2015,  is  correctly  applied  by  the  certification  bodies  and  produces  reliable 
information about the level of error. 

Commission's response: 

In order to support and guide the new work to be done by the Certification Bodies 
from financial year 2015, the Commission developed detailed guidelines on how to 
sample  and  report  the  results  of  their  re-verification  of  primary  level  controls 
initially  made  by  the  Paying  agencies.    If  done  properly,  the  results  of  the  re-
verification  will  be  the  basis  for  a  statistically  valid  opinion  on  the  legality  and 
regularity of the underlying transactions. 

The  detailed  guidelines  have  been  extensively  explained  to  the  Paying  Agencies 
and  Certification  Bodies,  and  their  implementation  is  being  closely  monitored  by 
the Commission. 

129. 

(§ 330 (h) - 2014/PAR/0366) The European Parliament requests that: 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(h)  the  Commission  ensure  complementarity  between  Union  funds  in  order  to 
mitigate the risk of double-funding and duplication of administration in knowledge-
transfer and advisory measures. 

Commission's response: 

In line with the applicable legislation Member States must ensure that there is no 
double-funding for the same project. 

130. 

(§ 330 (i) and § 113 of Part IX – Special Report No 5/2015 of the Court of Auditors 
entitled  "Are  financial  instruments  a  successful  and  promising  tool  in  the  rural 
development area?" - 2014/PAR/0367) The European Parliament requests that: 

(i)  the  Commission  encourage  Member  States  to  establish  a  single  financial 
instrument  which  is  able  to  provide  both  loans  and  guarantees,  thus  increasing  its 
activity and critical mass. 

Commission's response: 

Under  the  regulatory  framework  for  2014-2020  MSs  considering  establishing 
financial  instruments  are  required  to  carry  out  a  thorough  ex-ante  assessment 
providing evidence of market failures or suboptimal investment situations, and the 
estimated level and scope of public investment needs, including types of financial 
instruments  to  be  supported  (Article  37  of  Reg  1303/2013/EU).  Thus  the  type  of 
financial  instruments  must  be  based  on  such  an  analysis.  The  Commission 
provides  assistance  to  MSs  in  various  forms  in  order  to  help  the  set-up  of 
appropriate  financial  instruments,  such  as  guidance  notes,  direct  consultations, 
and  a  specific  technical  assistance  platform  has  also  been  launched  in  order  to 
facilitate the capacity building and awareness raising in cooperation with EIB: fi-
compass  (https://www.fi-compass.eu/).  Fi-compass  already  organized  numerous 
conferences and workshops, seminars for MSs and other interested stakeholders to 
share experience and help identifying the potentials of financial instruments. Free 
of  charge  targeted  coaching  has  been  also  made  available  for  Managing 
Authorities  under  fi-compass.  The  intervention  by  the  Commission  may  however 
not  go  beyond  these  forms  of  assistance:  the  choice  on  the  type  and  number  of 
instruments to set up in the rural development area belongs to Member States. 

131. 

(§ 330 (j) and § 111 of Part IX – Special Report No 5/2015 of the Court of Auditors 
entitled  "Are  financial  instruments  a  successful  and  promising  tool  in  the  rural 
development area?" - 2014/PAR/0368) The European Parliament requests that: 

(j) the Commission set appropriate standards and targets for leverage and revolving 
effects  in  order  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  financial  instruments  for  the 
programming period 2014-20. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

- With regard to leverage ratios and data for calculation of the leverage ratios: 

Article  37(2)c)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  requires  an  estimation  of  the 
expected leverage effect  during the performance of the ex-ante assessment for FIs 
which  is  required  before  any  decision  by  a  managing  authority  to  make 
programme contributions to a financial instrument . Point 6 of Article 140 of Reg 
966/2012/EU  (Financial  Regulation)  defines  the  absolute  minimum  for  leverage, 
namely  "Amounts  corresponding  at  least  to  the  Union  contribution,  or,  where 
applicable, multiples thereof shall be used for the attainment of the specific policy 
objectives  pursued  through  the  financial  instrument  ..."  However,  achieving 
leverage ratios must be balanced with public policy objectives, and since financial 
instruments are meant to address market failures on the financial market, in duly 
justified cases the participation of private investors cannot be expected. 

As provided for in Article 46(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Article 2 
and  annex  1  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  821/2014  of  28 
July  2014    managing  authorities  will  report  to  the  Commission  the  progress  in 
achieving the expected leverage effect. 

In the case of the so-called off-the shelf financial instruments (standard terms and 
conditions  for  financial  instruments),  the  Commission  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU)  964/2014  laying  down  rules  for  the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  requires  minimum 
financial contributions to the financial instruments from other sources other than 
the programme contribution intentionally aiming at achieving a higher leverage. 

The  Commission  has  issued  together  with  the  European  Investment  Bank  a 
General methodology for ex-ante assessment for financial instruments in the 2014-
2020 programming period which contains the required steps for the assessment of 
the  expected  leverage  effects  of  the  instruments  when  carrying  out  the  ex-ante 
assessment: 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/thefunds/fin_inst/pdf/ex_ante_vol1.pdf 

- With regard to minimum revolving periods 

This topic is treated in Article 45 of the Regulation (EU) 1303/2013 which requests 
the  minimum  revolving  period  to  be  at  least  eight  years  after  the  end  of  the 
eligibility period. 

Global Europe 

132. 

(§ 339 - 2014/PAR/0369) The European Parliament asks the Commission to provide 
an  up-to-date  report  on  the  state  of  these  projects  (projects  which  are  either  facing 
some delays in their implementation or where risks exist that they will not reach one 
or  more  of  their  initially  set  objectives)  and  calls  on  it  to  include  neighbourhood 
policy aid programmes in that report. 

78 

 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission is currently developing actions to address the observed situation 
as regards payments and project implementation and envisages to implement these 
actions by the end of 2017 / beginning of 2018. 

133. 

(§ 342 - 2014/PAR/0370) The European Parliament recalls that Parliament requested 
that  the  Commission  present  the  measures  taken  to  improve  the  performance  of 
Union  delegations  as  regards  financial  planning  and  resource  allocations,  financial 
administration  and  auditing  and  to  provide  the  conclusions  it  has  drawn  from  the 
EAMR with the EAMRs to Parliament. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The analysis of the KPI results for the year 2015, including measures to be taken 
in  2016  for  improving  the  performance  of  EU  Delegations  with  regards  to 
financial  planning  and  resource  allocations,  financial  administration  and 
auditing, was annexed to the 2015 Annual Activity Report (AAR) of DG DEVCO. 
The conclusions drawn by DG DEVCO from the EAMRs as regards the assurance 
are  also  presented 
is  available  on 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/amp/mplans2015_en.htm.  A  copy  of  all  the 
2015  EAMRs  have  already  been  transmitted  by  DG  DEVCO  to  the  European 
Parliament (Ref.: Ares(2016)2308804 - 18/05/2016). 

the  AAR.  The  2015  AAR 

in 

134. 

(§ 349 - 2014/PAR/0371) The European Parliament insists that the Commission use 
the EAMR to address the identified shortcomings, so that ongoing projects meet the 
objectives  initially  set;  expects  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  external  assistance 
projects  are  planned  within  a  realistic  time  frame  so  as  to  decrease  the  share  of 
delayed  projects;  expects  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  Parliament  on  corrective 
action to redress the situation in delegations with serious implementation problems. 

135. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  currently  developing  an  action  plan  to  address  the  observed 
situation  as  regards  payments  and  project  implementation.  The  Commission 
envisages to implement the requested actions by the end of 2017. 

(§ 352 - 2014/PAR/0372) The European Parliament expresses concern at the Union's 
management  of  external  assistance  in  third  countries;  points  out  that  every  second 
euro is paid late (at the time of the last report, this affected 805 projects), every third 
euro  failed to  reach  its  intended target (affecting  610  projects)  and  that both  of  the 
failings  apply  to  every  fourth  euro  (affecting  500  projects);  is  concerned  that  with 
regard to budget support almost one fifth (18,5 %) of the measures are late and fail to 
reach  the  objectives,  and  almost  half  of  the  EDF  projects  have  the  same 
implementation problems; is concerned that projects that are experiencing problems 
are  visited  less  frequently  than  those  without  problems;  asks  the  Commission  to 
provide an up-to-date report on the state of these projects and calls on it to include 
neighbourhood policy aid programmes in this report. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission is currently developing actions to address the observed situation 
as regards payments and project implementation and envisages to implement these 
actions by the end of 2017 / beginning of 2018. 

136. 

(§  361  -  2014/PAR/0373)  The  European  Parliament  points  out  that  the  budget 
support  transactions  examined  by  the  Court  were  free  from  errors  of  legality  and 
regularity; takes the view, however, that the Commission should introduce consistent 
monitoring  of  funds  allocated  in  the  form  of  budget  support,  including  systematic 
checks  on  compliance  with  the  conditions  governing  eligibility  for  this  type  of 
support. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  Commission  services  always  examine  very  carefully  the  compliance  with  the 
eligibility  criteria,  attainment  of  possible  performance  indicators  as  well  as  any 
possible  relevant  other  question  before  disbursing  budget  support  funds.  The 
overall  execution  of  funds  is  constantly  monitored  and  an  annual  report  on  the 
Financial  Implementation,  Risk  Analysis,  and  Selected  Macroeconomic,  Fiscal 
and  Developmental  Results  is  produced.  This  report  is  also  transmitted  to  the 
European Parliament and to the Council. 

137. 

(§  368  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0374)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(a)  follow  the  Court's  recommendation  to  set  up  and  implement  internal  control 
procedures  to  ensure  that  pre-financing  payments  are  based  on  actual  expenditure, 
and to strengthen the ex-ante controls for grant contracts, including the use of risk-
based planning and systematic follow-up visits. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action: 

- The rules for the clearing of pre-financings has been clarified in the DG DEVCO 
Companion,  insisting  on  the  obligation  for  the  clearings  to  be  based  on  actual 
expenditure. 

- EU Delegations and DG DEVCO operational services now have to complete and 
update  a  "Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Plan"  (MEP)  which  is  annexed  to  the 
EAMR. The planning should be based on a risk analysis carried out by each EU 
Delegation  or  HQ  operational  unit  on  its  overall  portfolio  of  projects  and 
programmes.  As  from  January  2016,  the  EAMR  also  contains  a  new  indicator 
regarding  the  coverage  of  projects  flagged  as  problematic  by  monitoring  and 
evaluation activities. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  With  respect  to  project  monitoring,  DEVCO  has  also  introduced  an  overall 
reform  of  the  ROM  system,  for  the  part  of  the  external  support  to  DEVCO  in 
relation to project monitoring, in spring 2015. 

- For the internal monitoring part of the project monitoring systems, it is referred 
to  the  development  of  a  new  operational  information  management  system 
(replacing CRIS) of which the first release scheduled for 2017 is to be for results 
management. 

138. 

(§  368  (b)  -  2014/PAR/0375)  The  European  Parliament  concludes  that  the 
Commission should: 

(b)  reflect  the  current  and  sharply  changing  set  of  priorities  to  provide  efficient 
Union  financial  support  to  follow  not  only  the  territorial  aspects  (Ukraine,  Turkey, 
Western  Balkan,  Eastern  Partnership  countries  among  others),  but  simultaneously 
also the thematic ones. 

Commission's response: 

EU  financial  assistance  is  programmed  in  a  balance  between  geographic  and 
thematic  support.  The  recently  revised  neighbourhood  policy  includes  the 
negotiation  of  joint  partnership  priorities,  which  is  ongoing  and  which  will  be 
reflected  in  the  programming  of  ENI.  For  enlargement,  the  IPA  II  regulation 
foresees  a  mid-term  review  of  the  Indicative  Strategy  Papers  in  2017.  These 
ongoing  and  upcoming  processes  allow  for  adapting  the  balance  between 
geographic and thematic programming as appropriate. 

139. 

(§ 369 - 2014/PAR/0376) The European Parliament requests that the Commission set 
up and implement internal control procedures to ensure that pre-financing is cleared 
on the basis of actual incurred expenditure not including legal commitments. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission has clarified in the DG DEVCO Companion (in the accounting 
manual, point 11.5.1) the rules for the clearing of pre-financings, insisting on the 
obligation for the clearings to be based on actual expenditure not including legal 
commitments. 

140. 

(§ 371 (a) - 2014/PAR/0377) The European Parliament asks the Commission to: 

(a) provide the Parliament every year with a global assessment of the EAMR. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The analysis of the KPI results for the year 2015, including measures to be taken 
in  2016  for  improving  the  performance  of  EU  Delegations  with  regards  to 
financial  planning  and  resource  allocations,  financial  administration  and 
auditing, was annexed to the 2015 Annual Activity Report (AAR) of DG DEVCO. 
The conclusions drawn by DG DEVCO from the EAMRs as regards the assurance 
are  also  presented 
is  available  on 
the  AAR.  The  2015  AAR 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/amp/mplans2015_en.htm 

in 

141. 

(§ 371 (b) - 2014/PAR/0378) The European Parliament asks the Commission to: 

(b)  indicate  in  the  annual  activity  reports  of  DG  DEVCO  and  DG  NEAR  the 
measures it has taken to redress the situation in the delegations with implementation 
problems, to shorten the delays in budget support and to simplify the programmes. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  analysis  of  KPI  results  for  the  year  2014,  annexed  to  the  Annual  Activity 
Report  of  DG  DEVCO,  provides  for  action  plans  to  be  elaborated  by  the 
Delegations which met targets for less than 60% of the KPIs. These action plans 
the  European  Parliament  (ref.  Ares(2015)4861339  - 
were 
05/11/2015). 

transmitted 

to 

The 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/amp/mplans2015_en.htm 

DEVCO 

2015 

AAR 

DG 

is 

available 

on 

Administration 

142. 

(§  374  -  2014/PAR/0379)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  all  Union 
institutions  and  agencies  implement  Article  16  of  the  Staff  Regulations  by 
publishing, on an annual basis, information about  senior officials who have left the 
Union  administration,  as  well  as  a  list  of  conflicts  of  interest;  requests  that  the 
aforementioned  independent  structure  assess  the  compatibility  of  post-Union 
employment  or  the  situation  whereby  civil  servants  and  former  Members  of  the 
Parliament move from the public to the private sector (the 'revolving door' issue) and 
the  possibility  of  a  conflict  of  interest,  and  define  clear  cooling-off  periods,  which 
should cover at least the period for which transitional allowances are granted. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission fulfils its statutory obligation to publish information about senior 
managers who engage in lobbying or advocacy activities each year. 

The Commission considers that the current ethical  framework is  sound and does 
not require an additional structure to assess former servants moving to the private 
sector. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conflicts of interest are assessed on their own merits. No cooling off period can be 
fixed  in  advance.  Proper  assessments  require  case-by-case  analysis  of  the 
situation. 

In assessing each case the Commission takes due account inter alia of the freedom 
to  choose  an  occupation  and  the  right  to  engage  in  work  (Art.  15  EU  Charter 
Fundamental Rights). 

143. 

(§  375  -  2014/PAR/0380)  The  European  Parliament  points  out  that  five  former 
officials  were  employed  as  special  advisors  in  2014  and  received  remuneration  in 
one  case  for  43  weeks  in  two  other  cases  for  30  weeks;  asks  the  Commission  to 
provide further information on why the original contracts were not prolonged instead 
of  paying  the  above-mentioned  former  officials  on  a  daily  basis,  whether  those 
original contracts were taken into account and if so how, and whether pensions were 
paid at the same time. 

Commission's response: 

The five persons concerned were already retired as officials when they were called 
upon  to  work  as  Special  Advisers.  An  extension  of  their  activity  as  officials  was 
therefore excluded. 

The conclusion of the Special Adviser contract did not entail a reduction of their 
pension. 

144. 

(§  376  -  2014/PAR/0381)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
present a transparent report with annual indications of the planned reduction in posts 
and to take account of the increase in working time in this. 

Commission's response: 

the  Commission  submits 

In  the  framework  of  the  annual  budgetary  procedure,  in  line  with  the  Financial 
Regulation  Article  38(3)(b) 
the  Parliament 
comprehensive  detailed  information  on  its  human  resources  which  includes 
information on the annual implementation of the 5% cut (Draft Budget Working 
Document 
Resources" 
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/2016/DB/DB2016_WDII_en.p
df). 

'Human 

Part 

to 

II 

Further  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  5%  reduction  target  is  also 
included  yearly  in  the  Political  presentation  of  the  Statement  of  estimates  (see 
latest  SEC(2015)240;  http://eurlex.europa.eu/budget/data/DB/2016/de/SEC00.pdf 
). 

145. 

(§  378  -  2014/PAR/0382)  The  European  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  to 
ensure  that  every  Union  institution  implements  rules  on  the  protection  of  whistle-
blowers; calls the Commission to promote legislation on the protection for whistle-
blowers in the Union. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission rejects the first part of the request as the various EU institutions 
are administratively autonomous; as such, the Commission cannot oblige the other 
institutions to adopt internal rules. 

The  Commission  accepts  the  second  part  of  the  request.  With  a  view  to 
strengthening  the  protection  of  whistle-blowers,  the  Commission  is  assessing  the 
scope  for  and  added  value  of  horizontal  action  at  EU  level,  covering  both  public 
and private sector whistleblowing, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity. 

146. 

(§  379  (first  part)  -  2014/PAR/0383)  The  European  Parliament  demands  that  all 
those  Union  institutions  and  agencies  that  have  not  yet  done  so  urgently  adopt 
internal rules on whistle-blowing and take a common approach to their obligations, 
focusing  on  the  protection  of  whistle-blowers;  requests  special  attention  for  the 
protection  of  whistle-blowers  in  the  context  of  the  Directive  on  the  Protection  of 
Trade Secrets. 

Commission's response: 

The  various  EU  institutions  are  administratively  autonomous;  as  such,  the 
Commission cannot oblige the other institutions to adopt internal rules. 

147. 

(§  379  (second  part)  -  2014/PAR/0384)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the 
Commission  to  promote  legislation  on  a  minimum  level  of  protection  for  whistle-
blowers in the Union. 

Commission's response: 

With a view to strengthening the protection of whistle-blowers, the Commission is 
assessing the scope for and added value of horizontal action at EU level, covering 
both  public  and  private  sector  whistleblowing,  while  respecting  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  Awaiting  the  outcome  of  this  assessment,  the  Commission  welcomes 
the  promotion  and  adoption  of  legalisation  on  a  minimum  level  of  protection  for 
whistle-blowers by the Member States. 

148. 

(§  379  (third  part)  -  2014/PAR/0385)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the 
institutions and agencies to amend the Staff Regulations to ensure that they not only 
formally  oblige  officials  to  report  irregularities  of  all  kinds  but  also  lay  down 
adequate  protection  for  whistle-blowers;  calls  on  the  institutions  and  agencies  to 
implement Article 22(c) of the Staff Regulations without delay. 

Commission's response: 

Ensuring  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  does  not  require  a  change  of  the  Staff 
Regulations:  Article  22c  of  the  Staff  Regulations  already  refers  to  the  need  to 
include adequate protection in the implementing rules. 

The Commission adopted such implementing rules in December 2012. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
149. 

(§ 380 - 2014/PAR/0386) The European Parliament expresses concern at the number 
of  suicides  among  staff;  takes  the  view  that  the  Commission  should  carry  out  a 
thorough assessment of staff well-being, in an effort to halt the suicides. 

Commission's response: 

In  response  to  a  staff  satisfaction  survey  in  2014,  a  multiannual,  comprehensive 
health and well-being "Fit@Work" programme was launched in 2015 to keep staff 
fit  and  healthy  in  a  health-conducive  environment.  The  programme  recognizes 
mental  health  as  a  key  priority  and  aims  to  mainstream  mental  health  issues, 
encourage staff and managers to recognise and address such issues with an open, 
preventive and proactive attitude. It also aims to cultivate over time an individual 
and collective corporate responsibility and resilience. 

A special focus is put on prevention of psychosocial risks: 

• risks assessment 

• training and awareness raising, dedicated guidelines for managers 

• conferences on topic such as burnout, depression, resilience 

• individual and group  interventions, including ad-hoc debriefing after traumatic 
events. 

The  staff  satisfaction  survey  in  2016  will  provide  a  more  detailed  assessment  of 
staff well-being, which will allow guiding the Fit@Work strategy accordingly. 

The  Commission  has  already  given  awareness  training  on  the  prevention  of 
psychosocial  risks  to  600  middle  managers  in  the  Commission.  This  training 
program  will  be  gradually  extended  to  staff  members.  In  addition,  a  steering 
committee will be put in place to coordinate the efforts of prevention amongst the 
various  actors  (medical  services,  working  environment  and  safety,  network  of 
confidential  counsellors,  mediator,  ...).  In  the  context  of  the  new  HR  delivery 
model,  the  "single  entry  point"  function  will  provide  extensive  information  on 
psychosocial  risks  and  channel  people  needing  assistance  to  the  most  suitable 
actor. The Joint Committee on Occupational Safety is closely involved in all these 
actions,  ensuring  that staff  representatives are fully informed and can contribute 
to this extensive programme of actions. 

150. 

(§ 384 - 2014/PAR/0387) The European Parliament considers the immunity of Union 
staff from criminal proceedings in Member States, which dates back 64 years, to be a 
privilege that has long been obsolete; calls for this privilege under the Protocol to the 
Treaty to be confined to Union staff in countries outside the EU. 

Commission's response: 

The Protocol does not apply in third countries. Immunities in third countries are 
based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. 

151. 

(§  388  -  2014/PAR/0388)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that  a  distinction 
should be made between elected representatives and public officials in the legislation 

85 

 
 
 
 
on  conflicts  of  interest;  believes  that  there  should  also  be  such  regulations  in  the 
Member States for public officials and civil servants involved in the administration 
and monitoring of Union subsidies; calls on the Commission to submit a draft legal 
basis on this matter. 

Commission's response: 

Regarding  conflicts  of  interests  at  the  level  of  the  Member  States,  the  Financial 
Regulation and other EU legal  provisions foresee the  obligation for them to  take 
the  necessary  measures  to  avoid  conflicts  of  interest,  and  to  report  to  the 
Commission  on  the  systems  put  in  place  to  ensure  their  avoidance.  A  legally 
binding  EU  solution  on  the  measures  to  be  taken  is  not  foreseeable  as  the 
avoidance  of  conflicts  of  interest  at  national  level  falls  under  the  competence  of 
Member States. 

(§  390  -  2014/PAR/0389)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
review  the  code  of  conduct  for  Commissioners  by  the  end  of  2017,  including  by 
defining  what  constitutes  a  "conflict  of  interest"  as  well  as  introducing  criteria  for 
assessing the compatibility of post-office employment and extending the cooling off 
period  to  three  years  for  Commissioners;  calls  on  the  Commission  to  ask  from 
Member States that they clearly indicate any potential conflicts of interests of their 
candidate  member  of  the  Commission  and  explain  how  conflicts  of  interests  are 
defined in their national legislation. 

152. 

Commission's response: 

The  President  of  the  Commission  allocates  the  envisaged  portfolios  after  due 
consideration  of  possible  risks  of  conflicts  of  interests.  The  whole  procedure, 
including  the  prior  publication  of  declarations  of  interest  before  the  public 
hearings organised by the EP, are designed to rule out conflicts of interest. After 
nomination,  the  Code  requires  updates  to  declarations  of  interest  and  possible 
conflicts of interest  must  be notified to  the  President in advance.  A review of  the 
Code would only be envisaged if and when necessary. 

153. 

(§  391  -  2014/PAR/0390)  The  European  Parliament  Requests  that  the  Commission 
pay  particular  attention  in  this  regard  to  the  prevention  of  conflicts  of  interest  and 
corruptive  practices  in  the  case  of  decentralised  agencies,  which  are  particularly 
vulnerable considering the fact that they are relatively unknown to the public and are 
also located throughout the Union. 

Commission's response: 

While  the  agencies  are  administratively  autonomous  bodies,  the  Commission  has 
provided support in strengthening the capacity of the agencies to handle suspected 
cases  of  conflicts  of  interests  and  other  irregularities.  The  Investigation  and 
Disciplinary  Office  of  the  Commission  (IDOC)  has  provided,  and  continues  to 
provide,  ad-hoc  procedural  advice  and  has  given  training  on  how  to  handle  the 
relevant  proceedings.  It  has  also  provided  support  in  setting  up  an  inter-agency 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
pool of case handlers, to be trained by IDOC, that agencies may call upon to help 
conduct such proceedings. 

154. 

(§  392  -  2014/PAR/0391)  The  European  Parliament  calls  upon  the  Commission  to 
proactively  publish  the  opinions  of  the  ethical  committee  in  accordance  with 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  in  order  to  let,  the  public  hold  the  Commission 
accountable for the decisions it makes; reiterates its recommendation that the ad hoc 
ethical committee be reformed to extend its powers and include independent experts. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  rejects  the  request  to  publish  the  opinions  of  the  ethical 
committee.  In  accordance  with  Regulation  1049/2001,  the  Commission  gives 
access  to  the  documents  requested,  but  commercial  or  personal  data  are  made 
anonymous. The members of the Ad hoc Ethical Committee are idependent experts 
which deliver opinions to the Commission. Therefore, the Committee does not have 
"powers" as such. The Commission is however fully accountable and transparency 
is 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/ethics-for-
commissioners/decisions_en.htm 

ensured: 

155. 

(§  394  -  2014/PAR/0392)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
publish the declarations of interest in an open, machine-readable format. 

Commission's response: 

Declarations  of  interest  are  published  in  a  commonly  used  PDF  format  which  is 
perfectly adapted to transparency and enables public scrutiny. 

156. 

(§  398  -  2014/PAR/0393)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
incorporate  a  clause  in  all  future  Union  laws  on  payments  to  the  effect  that 
businesses  owned  by  office-holders  in  Union  Member  States  and  in  third  countries 
may not apply for or receive any Union funding. 

Commission's response: 

Regarding  conflicts  of  interests  at  the  level  of  Member  States,  the  Financial 
Regulation  establishes  the  obligation  for  them  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
avoid conflicts of interests, and to report to the Commission on the systems put in 
place to ensure their avoidance. A legally binding EU solution is not foreseeable as 
the  avoidance  of  conflict  of  interest  lies  at  national  level.  Under  the  Financial 
Regulation, such cases of conflicts of interests can give rise to exclusion from EU 
funds on grounds of grave professional misconduct. 

157. 

(§  401  -  2014/PAR/0394)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
expand  the  recording  of  meeting  data  with  lobbyists  to  everyone  involved  in  the 
Union's policy-making process by requesting from their DGs regular reports on the 
meetings taking place within their respective services and by putting this information 
in an easily accessible manner on the Commission's website. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

It  has  been consciously  decided  to limit  the  scope  of  the  recording  and  reporting 
provisions to the top decision-makers at the political and at the civil-service level. 
The  reason  behind  this  policy  choice  is  the  special  role  and  responsibilities 
allocated  to  the  persons  holding  such  positions.  The  Commission  believes  that 
extending  the  reporting  requirements  to  all  staff  would  create  an  additional 
administrative burden without bringing proportionate added-value. 

As  of  1  December  2014,  Commissioners,  their  Cabinet  members  and  Directors 
General  publish information  on  the  meetings  they  hold  with  lobbyists.  Moreover, 
they  meet  only  with  interest  representatives  whose  organisations  feature  on  the 
Transparency  Register.  These  arrangements  ensure  full  transparency  regarding 
meetings of the top decision-makers at the political and at the management level. 
As concerns other staff members, the Commission recommends to all staff to check 
the credentials of a given interest representative to make sure they are registered in 
the  Transparency  Register  and,  if  they  are  not,  encourage  them  to  register.  The 
Commission  constantly  promotes  this  "good  practice"  as  part  of  its  training  and 
awareness-raising actions on relations with interest groups. 

158. 

(§  403  -  2014/PAR/0395)  The  European  Parliament  welcomes  the  publication  of  a 
list  of  senior  officials  leaving  the  Commission  and  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
include all members of the Cabinet in the definition of senior officials. 

Commission's response: 

The statutory  obligation  of  Art 16, para 3, is applicable to senior officials  as this 
transparency  measure 
functions  and 
responsibilities of the former staff member. Not all Cabinet staff however perform 
functions  that  are  commensurate  with  this  provision  as  they  are  not  senior 
officials. The Heads of Cabinet are considered as senior officials. 

is  proportionate 

terms  of 

the 

in 

159. 

(§ 404 - 2014/PAR/0396) The European Parliament urges the Commission to follow 
up  on  the  Ombudsman's  recommendations  against  conflicts  of  interest  in  expert 
groups and to postpone the adoption of new horizontal rules, until the Parliament has 
been able to express its opinion on the basis of the ongoing work on a joint CONT-
JURI own-initiative report. 

Commission's response: 

The  new  framework  for  Commission  expert  groups  accommodates  virtually  all 
Ombudsman's suggestions as regards conflict of interest. 

To the Commission’s knowledge, the Parliament has not pursued the preparation 
of its own-initiative report on expert groups. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Others 

160. 

(§  408  -  2014/PAR/0397)  The  European  Parliament  asks  for  an  update  about  the 
ongoing  cooperation  with  the  International  Management  Group  (IMG)  and  for 
information from the Commission in particular about ongoing and new contracts and 
payments. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

For  DEVCO,  projects  were  in  general  delivered  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  as 
several  audits  have  confirmed.  DEVCO  has  two  open  contracts  with  IMG  at 
present. The contract signed in 2013 for "Strengthening Democratic Governance 
in the Republic of South Sudan" arrived to the end of its implementation period in 
April 2016. 

Regarding  the  contract  on  "Strengthening  policy  development  to  meet  MDGs  in 
Myanmar", signed in 2012, all activities agreed were performed.  The project final 
narrative  report  was  timely  received  and  approved  in  August  2016  and  the  final 
payment request is currently being treated. 

Since March 2014, no new contracts have been entered into with this organisation 
neither  under  the  special  procedure  applicable  to  International  Organisations 
under  the  indirect  management  of  funds  (and  this  until  IMG  further  clarifies  its 
legal status), neither under the standard procurement and grant procedures under 
direct management (even though IMG remains actually eligible). 

Regarding the three contracts with IMG in indirect management managed by FPI, 
all activities have been concluded and final reports received, with the exception of 
one  contract  for  which  the  final  financial  report  is  still  due.  FPI  has  executed 
payments  on  interim  reports  with  financial  prudence,  by  applying  a  retention  on 
the amounts contractually due corresponding to the estimated overstatement of the 
human resource  expenses identified by a verification mission performed in 2014. 
Pending outcome of a further verification, the interim payments will be regularised 
and final payments or recoveries performed. In relation to one contract, FPI has 
issue  a  recovery  order  which  was  subsequently  offset  by  the  Accounting  Officer. 
No new contracts have been signed with IMG. 

For DG NEAR, since January 2014, no new contracts have been entered into with 
IMG. Currently NEAR had two contracts in Indirect Management, both relating to 
projects in Libya. One of them was terminated due to force majeure (owing to the 
difficult  political  situation  in  Libya)  and  a  recovery  order  of  €2.7  million  was 
issued  in  November  2015.  The  second  one  is  fully  implemented  i.e.  activities 
terminated, the final report has been issued and a recovery order has been issued 
and  cashed  for  the  remaining  balance.  Following  a  verification  mission  where 
final  report  was  issued  in  July  2016,  further  actions  may  be  taken  on  these  two 
contracts. DG NEAR also manages 2 service contracts in direct management, one 
in Libya (activities are finished and a financial audit ongoing) and one in Lebanon 
where activities are ongoing. It can be expected that payments under the Lebanon 
contract will still be made, following appropriate verifications. 

89 

 
 
 
 
161. 

(§ 409 - 2014/PAR/0398) The European Parliament calls for clarification as to which 
unfinished Greek Union projects can no longer be funded after 31 December 2015; 
calls for clarification as to what is to happen with each of these projects. 

Commission's response: 

Any expenditure incurred after 31/12/2015 for the completion of the projects 2007-
2013  is  covered  by  national  funds.  However,  some  projects  will  be  entirely 
transferred or phased for co-financing under the programming period 2014-2020. 
The clear picture for each category of projects will be available when the closure 
documents for the programmes 2007-2013 are submitted to the Commission by end 
March 2017. 

162. 

(§ 411 - 2014/PAR/0399) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to take 
appropriate  measures  and  on  OLAF  to  continue  and  accelerate  its  analysis  of  the 
reasons  why  Member  States  do  not  follow  up  alleged  cases,  to  provide  the 
Parliament  with  its  findings  in  this  respect  and  to  continue  to  support  the  Member 
States  in  improving  their  performance  in  the  prevention  and  detection  of  fraud 
against European funds. 

Commission's response: 

There is no systematic reporting done by the Member States (such a measure was 
rejected by the co-legislators during the negotiations which took place prior to the 
adoption  of  Regulation  883/2013),  although  Regulation  883/2013  introduced  a 
provision obliging the Member States authorities to provide information on actions 
taken when so requested by OLAF. 

OLAF  is  currently  analysing  more  in  detail  the  follow-up  given  to  its  judicial 
recommendations. The Parliament will be informed of the results when ready. 

The  evaluation  of  Regulation  883/2013  which  is  due  for  October  2017  will  also 
provide an opportunity to assess whether there is a need to improve the reporting 
system and what could be done in this respect. 

163. 

164. 

(§ 412 - 2014/PAR/0400) The European Parliament notes that 2014 was the first year 
in  which 
the 
recommendations previously issued; calls on OLAF and the Supervisory Committee 
to repeat this exercise on a yearly basis. 

the  Supervisory  Committee  has  decided 

follow-up  on 

to 

Commission's response: 

OLAF  regularly  reports 
the  SC 
recommendations.  The  last  report  by  OLAF  was  transmitted  to  the  SC  on  15 
January 2016 and is available on OLAF's website. A next report can be expected 
in early 2017. 

implementation  of 

the  SC  on 

the 

to 

(§  413  -  2014/PAR/0401)  The  European  Parliament  urges  OLAF  to  implement  the 
in 
recommendations  on 

the  direct  participation  of 

the  Director  General 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
investigations,  as  Article  7(1)  and  (2)  of  regulation  No  883/2013  clearly  stipulates 
that investigations are to be conducted by staff appointed by the Director General and 
not  by  the  Director  General  himself,  as  this  may  create  investigations  with 
conflicting objectives. 

Commission's response: 

OLAF  has  always  carefully  assessed  and  implemented  where  possible  the  SC 
recommendations.  This  recommendation  refers  to  a  specific  case  from  2012  on 
which OLAF has provided extensive clarifications to the SC. OLAF considers the 
matter closed. 

OLAF's reporting on the implementation of the SC recommendations is available 
on OLAF's website. 

165. 

(§  415  -  2014/PAR/0402)  The  European  Parliament  is  strongly  convinced  that  the 
supervisory  committee  should  be  informed  of  all  dismissed  cases  in  which 
information has been transmitted to national judicial authorities, in accordance with 
Article  17(5)  of  Regulation  No  883/2013,  in  order  to  protect  the  procedural 
guarantees  of  the  persons  concerned  with  the  allegations;  demands  from  OLAF  to 
implement the Supervisory Committee's recommendation as soon as possible. 

Commission's response: 

OLAF  has  always  carefully  assessed  and  implemented  where  possible  the  SC 
recommendations.  This  recommendation  has  been  submitted  for  consultation  to 
the three Legal Services of the Institutions in the context of the discussions on the 
Working Arrangements between OLAF and the SC. The consultation of the Legal 
Services is ongoing. 

166. 

(§ 416 - 2014/PAR/0403) The European Parliament notes that OLAF closed in 2014 
a  total  of  307  investigations  and  coordinated  activities;  that  in  147  of  these 
investigations  OLAF  issued  a  recommendation,  yielding  a  follow-up  rate  of  47  %; 
notes  that  in  years  prior  to  2011,  the  rate  was  regularly  above  50  %;  expects  that 
OLAF undertake measures to restore its effectiveness permanently by improving its 
selection procedure; is of the opinion that OLAF should reconsider recommendation 
No 31 of the supervisory committee to increase its effectiveness. 

Commission's response: 

The figures mentioned in the recommendation do not come from the OLAF Report 
2014 and it has not been possible to establish the source of these figures. 

OLAF  is  effective  in  its  investigative  function  and  the  dedicated  selection 
procedure  functions  very  efficiently  in  light  of  the  considerable  amount  of 
incoming information to OLAF. The Office continuously seeks to further improve 
its selection process. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
167. 

the  Supervisory  Committee 

(§ 417 - 2014/PAR/0404) The European Parliament notes the joint efforts of OLAF 
and 
to  reach  an  agreement  on  new  working 
arrangements; reiterates its call relating to the 2013 budget for a speedy resolution of 
the remaining issues between OLAF and its Supervisory Committee, so as to enable 
them  to  fulfil  their  legal  duties  effectively  under  the  conditions  of  their  current 
limited  cooperation;  calls  on  the  Commission  fully  to  play  its  role  and  to  actively 
work on a long-term solution to be put in place without delay. 

Commission's response: 

The  Legal  Services  of  the  three  Institutions  are  currently  involved  in  the 
discussions on  the  revision  of  the  working  arrangements  between  OLAF  and  the 
SC with the aim of clarifying the interpretation to be given to the legal provisions 
concerning  the  Supervisory  Committee's  access  to  OLAF's  documents.  To  avoid 
any  appearance  that  OLAF  can  impair  the  functioning  of  the  support  to  the  SC 
Members, the Commission has also proposed to amend the Regulation 883/2013 to 
separate the SC Secretariat and its budget from OLAF. 

168. 

(§  420  -  2014/PAR/0405)  The  European  Parliament  urges  OLAF  to  grant  the 
Supervisory Committee access to documents that the Supervisory Committee deems 
necessary to fulfil its task in accordance with its remit within the legislative mandate. 

Commission's response: 

When regularly reporting to the SC or replying to the Committee's requests, OLAF 
applies  the  agreed  Working  Arrangements  and  the  applicable  legislation.  OLAF 
has provided to the SC great amount of information and based on this information, 
the  SC  has  been  able  to  conduct  several  analyses  and  has  for  example  delivered 
four Opinions and one Special Report in 2015. 

169. 

(§ 423 - 2014/PAR/0406) The European Parliament urges OLAF to draw up internal 
rules on whistleblowing in accordance with the new 2014 Staff Regulations. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  considers  that  appropriate  measures  are  already  in  place.  The 
Commission  Guidelines  on  Whistleblowing  (SEC(2012)  679)  apply  to  OLAF. 
These  Guidelines  cover  confidentiality,  reporting  procedures,  the  protection  of 
whistleblowers,  feedback  to  the  whistleblower  and  guidance  and  support  to  the 
whistleblower. 

In addition to this, OLAF has also adopted on 27 July 2015 a specific procedure in 
the context of EU staff members reporting in accordance with Articles 22a and 22b 
of  the  Staff  Regulations.  This  procedure  clarifies  OLAF's  internal  procedure 
(including  confidentiality),  the  protection  against  retaliation  and  the  role  of  the 
ethics officer. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
170. 

(§ 425 - 2014/PAR/0407) The European Parliament requests that OLAF provide in 
its next annual report detailed information on the type of investigation and results in 
all sectors. 

Commission's response: 

OLAF strives to ensure that the information in the OLAF Report is relevant to the 
needs  of  readers  and  will  consider  this  recommendation  and  ways  to  include  the 
data requested in its following Annual Reports. 

The  OLAF  Report  2015  presented  information  on  its  investigative  activity  by 
sector:  in  particular,  on-going  investigations  by  sector  (figure  10),  amounts 
recommended  for  recovery  by  sector  (figure14),  investigations  concluded  (figures 
18;  24).  The  report  furthermore  presented  data  on  the  implementation  of  OLAF 
recommendations  by  the  relevant  authorities  as  well  as  a  number  of  illustrative 
case studies spanning several sectors. 

171. 

(§  427  -  2014/PAR/0408)  The  European  Parliament  stresses  that  the  agreements 
concluded  with  the  "big  four"  tobacco  companies  (Philip  Morris  International, 
British  American  Tobacco,  Japan  Tobacco  International,  and  Imperial  Tobacco 
Limited) do not address important characteristics of the illicit tobacco trade today, in 
particular  the  high  proportion  of  the  trade  that  is  now  made  up  of  ‘cheap  whites’; 
calls  on  the  Commission,  to  come  forward  with  an  action  plan  setting  out  new 
measures to tackle this problem as a matter of urgency. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  growing  problem  of  so-called  'cheap  whites'  on 
the  illicit  tobacco  market  in  the  EU.  This  issue  also  featured  prominently  in  the 
Commission's  2013  Strategy  Paper.  In  addition  to  the  existing  Strategy,  the 
Commission  continues  its  reflections  on  other  possible  tools  to  combat  cheap 
whites.  The  Commission  is  due  to  present  a  report  on  implementing  the  2013 
Strategy later this year. This report is set to discuss lessons learned with regard to 
the  phenomenon  of  cheap  whites.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  considers  to 
propose further measures in 2018. 

172. 

(§ 430 - 2014/PAR/0409) The European Parliament urges the Commission to put in 
place,  at  Union  level  and  by  the  date  of  expiry  of  the  PMI  agreement,  all  the 
necessary  measures  to  track  and  trace  PMI  tobacco  products,  and  to  bring  legal 
action for any illegal seizures of this manufacturer’s products until all provisions of 
the Tobacco Products Directive are fully enforceable, so that there is  no regulatory 
gap  between  the  expiry  of  the  PMI  agreement  and  the  entry  into  force  of  the  TPD 
and FCTC. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  supports  strengthened  enforcement  and  legal  actions  on  any 
seizure of this manufacturer's products. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
173. 

(§ 432 - 2014/PAR/0410) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to bring 
forward  a  new,  additional  regulation  establishing  an  independent  track-and-trace 
system  and  applying  due  diligence  (‘know  your  customer’)  provisions  to  raw  cut 
tobacco,  filters  and  papers  used  by  the  tobacco  industry,  as  an  additional  tool  to 
combat contraband and counterfeit products. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  partially  accepts  the  EP  recommendation.  It  considers  that 
exercising  a  more  stringent  control  of  some  of  the  input  materials  used  for 
cigarette manufacturing could serve as a useful tool in combatting the illicit trade 
in  tobacco.  However,  the  practical  implementation  of  such  system,  its  regulatory 
basis  as  well  as  the  role  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  merits  careful  analysis. 
Building  also  on  lessons  learned  from  the  Implementation  report  of  the 
Commission's 2013 Strategy Paper additional legislative measures require further 
analysis. 

174. 

(§  433  -  2014/PAR/0411)  The  European  Parliament  regrets  the  delay  in  the 
Commission's  assessment  of  tobacco  agreements;  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
provide this as soon as possible, outlining the results of the investments made using 
the money paid by tobacco companies under these agreements. 

Commission's response: 

The  assessment  of  the  PMI  tobacco  agreement  was  transmitted  to  the  EP  on  24 
February 2016. 

175. 

(§  435  -  2014/PAR/0412)  The  European  Parliament  urges  all  the  relevant  Union 
institutions  to  implement  Article  5.3  of  the  WHO  FCTC  in  accordance  with  the 
recommendations  contained  in  the  guidelines  thereto;  urges  the  Commission  to 
publish  immediately  the  assessment  agreements  with  tobacco  companies  and  an 
impact assessment on the implementation of the WHO FCTC. 

Commission's response: 

As regards the implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention 
on  Tobacco  Control  (FCTC),  the  Commission  points  out  that  the  EU  and  all 
Member States are parties to the WHO FCTC and implement it according to their 
respective  competence  areas  (cf.  also  the  reply  to  the  Ombudsman  in  case 
2014/0852 on 29.1.2016). Concerning the point on the assessment agreements with 
tobacco  companies,  it  refers  to  the  Commission  staff  working  document 
SWD(2016)44 of 24.2.2016. As the FCTC is already adopted and and is currently 
implemented, an impact assessment, being a prospective assessment, of the FCTC 
implementation is not foreseen. 

176. 

(§ 439 - 2014/PAR/0413) The European Parliament recalls that the Parliament in its 
2010 Commission discharge procedure had already questioned "the decision-making 
and  financing  structures  of  the  Convention  on  the  European  Schools";  and  had 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
demanded  that  the Commission  "explore with  the Member States a revision of that 
Convention and [...] report by 31 December 2012 on the progress made"; notes that 
no progress report was ever received by Parliament. 

Commission's response: 

To  follow-up  on  the  EP  recommendation  in  the  2010  discharge  the  Commission 
requested that all the Member States, contribute to the debate on cost-sharing and 
governance.  The  issue  was  discussed  at  the  Board  of  Governors  in  2012,  but  the 
debate  was 
the 
intergovernmental system/revision of the Convention. The conditions for changing 
the  Convention were  thus not met and therefore, the  Commission concluded that 
any  required  changes  should  be  made  within  the  framework  of  the  existing 
Convention. 

the  governance  and 

inconclusive  as 

regards 

rather 

More recently the Commission took a variety of measures to address the Court of 
Auditors  recommendations  on  the  ES  system.  Indeed,  to  address  the  problems 
exposed by the Court and by the IAS, there is no need to change the Convention at 
all.  The  Board  of  Governors  is  empowered  to  take  the  decisions  required  for 
change  and  could  enforce  improved  financial  governance  under  the  existing 
Convention. 

177. 

(§  441  -  2014/PAR/0414)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
report  on  the  progress  made  by  the  European  Schools  in  implementing  the  Court's 
recommendations and the Commission's action plan by 1 July 2016. 

Commission's response: 

The ES are governed by an intergovernmental cooperation agreement between the 
Member States (MS) and the European Union. The Contracting parties are the MS 
and the Commission (COM). The COM as the Member States has 1 seat and 1 vote 
on  the  Board  of  Governors  (BoG)  that  supervises  the  implementation  of  the 
Convention.  The  Secretary  General  (SG)  of  the  ES  manages  and  ensures  the 
performance of the ES system as a whole. He is responsible for the representation 
of the BoG and is accountable to it for the management and operation of the ES 
system. 

The  Schools  are  autonomous  and  the  Directors  of  the  schools  are  directly 
appointed, by the BoG, as Authorising officers and are accountable to the BoG for 
the  functioning  of  their  respective  School  (idem  for  the  SG  regarding  the 
functioning and the management of the SG Central Office). 

In  this  context,  the  SG  of  the  ES  should  be  associated  to  any  reporting  on  the 
functioning of the ES system. 

A  follow-up  of  the  audit  recommendations  and  their  implementation  is  presented 
twice a year to the Budgetary Committee (BC) of the ES and to the BoG. Any new 
action plan shall be adopted by the BoG. 

The next reporting will be presented by the SG of the ES to the BC and to the BoG 
in November and December. 

95 

 
 
 
 
By consequence,  the COM proposes  that the report  on the implementation of the 
Court's  recommendations  to  be  made  by  the  COM  and  the  SG  of  the  ES  to  the 
European Parliament be presented in December 2016 (and not in July.) 

178. 

(§  443  - 2014/PAR/0415)  The European Parliament calls  on the Commission  in  its 
function  as  major  financial  contributor  to  ensure  that  Euronews  respects  the 
principles  of  sound  financial  management  and  all  legal  agreements  with  the 
Commission including the binding charter on editorial independence. 

Commission's response: 

Euronews  has  implemented  new  measures  to  ensure  its  editorial  independence 
following the acquisition of a majority stake by the private company Media Global 
Networks. These measures include the setup of a new created Editorial board with 
an independent president holding a veto right on editorial issues, as well as annual 
transparency reports on editorial production and an external monitoring to assess 
the  editorial  production.  In  addition,  the  Commission  carries  out  audits  and 
evaluations  to  monitor  the  channel's  performance  and  its  compliance  with  the 
financial rules and legal agreements. A performance audit is currently ongoing to 
assure  that  Euronews  is  honouring  its  commitments  with  the  European 
Commission. 

General results and policy recommendations 

179. 

(§  445  (a)  -  2014/PAR/0416)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that  the  2014 
discharge  calls  on  the  Commission  and  the  other  relevant  actors  to  continue  to 
develop  an  appropriate  methodology  and  framework  to  pursue  the  performance 
approach further and with greater rigour. 

Commission's response: 

The  Juncker  Commission  aims  to  develop  a  stronger  performance  culture  in 
relation  to  the  EU  budget.  One  of  its  top  priorities  is  to  ensure  that  the  budget 
focuses on delivering tangible results for the benefit of citizens. 

To  pursue  such  priority  a  network  of  Commissioners  has  been  established  to 
provide  the  political  steer  leadership  and  coordination  for  action  to  improve  the 
performance of the budget and ensure value for money. In its first meeting held on 
4 March 2015, the network endorsed a common approach to analyse and improve 
the budget implementation cycle, through four fundamental axes: 

- in which areas is the EU budget invested? 

- how is the EU budget invested? 

-  how  are  the  implementation  and  performance  of  the  EU  budget  monitored  and 
assessed? 

- how the result and contribution of the EU Budget is communicated? 

In  order  to  validate  the  performance  framework  in  place  for  the  EU  budget  and 
identify  possible  avenues  for  improvements  the  Commission  has  been  working 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
closely  with  the  OECD  who  possesses  top  expertise  in  the  field  of  performance-
based budgeting. The results of this cooperation should be available by the end of 
2016.  For  the  same  purpose  a  series  of  expert  meetings  has  been  organised  on 
performance-based budgeting where the Commission is pooling the expertise from 
the Member States, international organisations and the European Parliament. The 
experts are looking at the theoretical aspects of PBB, using performance indicators 
etc.,  but  also  discussing  how  this  is  implemented  in  practice  within  the 
performance  framework  of  the  EU  budget  and  how  it  compares  to  national 
practices. The overall aim of the exercise is to identify the most useful elements of 
performance-based  budgeting  that  might  be  applicable  to  the  EU  budget.  In 
addition  communication  and  dialogue  with  different  stakeholders  have  been 
enhanced  via  the  annual  conference  on  EU  Budget  Focused  on  Results  and  the 
EU Results Web tool. 

180. 

(§  445  (d)  -  2014/PAR/0417)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that  the  2014 
discharge  calls  on  the  relevant  Union  institutions  to  adjust  their  management  and 
procedural  systems  to  implement  successfully  new  elements  coming  from  current 
and future Union budgetary needs, to allow the Union budget to realise its potential 
optimally. 

Commission's response: 

All  Commission  departments  have been  invited  to  review  their  control  systems  in 
order  to  ensure  that  they  are  risk-based,  taking  into  account  their  cost-
effectiveness  and  having  due  regard  to  the  management  environment  and  the 
nature of the actions financed. By the end of 2015, 25 departments had done so; 
half had taken measures to improve cost-efficiency while the others concluded that 
no  changes  were  needed.  The  remaining  departments  are  expected  to  implement 
measures or carry out their review in 2016. 

Foreign Affairs Committee's opinions 

181. 

(§ 446 - 2014/PAR/0418) The European Parliament is concerned about the increase 
in  the  rate  of  material  error  in  heading  4  for  the  2014  financial  year;  supports  all 
recommendations made by the Court in its annual report and urges the Commission 
to  follow  up  swiftly  on  recommendations  from  the  previous  years  that  are  still  not 
fully implemented. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

While  the  error  rate  for  the  'Global  Europe'  chapter  (heading  4)  of  the  ECA 
Annual  Report  increased  between  the  reporting  years  2013  and  2014,  another 
decisive factor to determine action plans, the Residual Error Rate (RER), steadily 
decreased over the reporting years 2012-2015. Nevertheless, it remained above the 
materiality  level  which  is  the  reasons  why  action  plans  have  been  drawn  up  to 
the  control  framework.  The 
address 

implementation  weaknesses  of 

the 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
182. 

implementation of past recommendations is systematically and closely followed up 
by the Commission services. 

(§  448  -  2014/PAR/0419)  The  European  Parliament  notes  with  concern  the  errors 
identified in the context of expenditure verification for grant contracts, which make 
up more than 50 % of errors identified by the Court in heading 4; notes that the most 
significant type of error concerns ineligible expenditures; stresses the importance of 
preventing or detecting and correcting the errors before accepting the expenditures, 
through  a  better  implementation  of  ex  ante  controls;  notes  with  particular  concern 
Europe Aid's failure to detect errors; urges the Commission to ensure that the efforts 
made  thus  far  to  solve  these  problems  with  expenditure  verification  are  intensified 
and  to  follow  up  fully  on  the  recommendation  on  grant  supervision  made  by  the 
Court in its 2011 annual report. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested actions. 

The  on-going  action  plan  intended  to  tackle  the  weaknesses  in  the  DG  DEVCO 
control system will be further adjusted, as a result of the new reservations made in 
the AAR 2015 and in the light of the findings of the 2015 RER study, in order to 
better differentiate the controls put in place and address issues identified in the two 
high risk expenditure areas, notably grants under direct management mode. 

With  respect  to  the  specific  Court  of  Auditors  recommendation  relating  to  grant 
supervision,  a  portfolio  management  dashboard  has  been  put  in  production  in 
December 2015 to help EU Delegations better screen their portfolio of projects and 
give priority to visits to projects in particular need of monitoring. Delegations and 
DG DEVCO operational services also have to complete and update a "Monitoring 
and  Evaluation  Plan"  (MEP)  which  is  annexed  to  the  EAMR.  The  planning 
should  be  based  on  a  risk  analysis  carried  out  by  each  EU  Delegation  or  HQ 
operational  unit  on  its  overall  portfolio  of  projects  and  programmes.  As  from 
January 2016, the EAMR also contains a new indicator regarding the coverage of 
projects flagged as problematic by monitoring and evaluation activities. 

With  respect  to  project  monitoring,  DEVCO  has  introduced  an  overall  reform  of 
the  ROM  system,  for  the  part  of  the  external  support  to  DEVCO  in  relation  to 
project monitoring, in spring 2015. For the internal monitoring part of the project 
monitoring  systems,  it  is  referred  to  the  development  of  a  new  operational 
information  management  system  (replacing  CRIS)  of  which  the  first  release 
scheduled for 2017 is to be for results management. 

(§  453  -  2014/PAR/0420)  The  European  Parliament  recalls  that  the  efficiency  of 
CSDP training and advisory missions is greatly hampered by the Union's institutional 
difficulties  to  accompany  these  actions  with  even  basic  support  in  terms  of 
equipment;  welcomes  in  this  context  the  efforts  made  by  the  Commission  to 
implement the joint  communication on capacity-building  in support of security and 
development;  calls  on  the  Commission  to  put  forward  the  necessary  legislative 
proposals for the creation of a dedicated fund as soon as possible, so that it can be 
included in the Union budget in the course of the mid-term review of the MFF. 

98 

183. 

 
 
 
Commission's response: 

On  5  July  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the 
European  Council  and  the  Parliament  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  230/2014 
[COM(2016)  447].  The  objective  of  this  legislative  proposal  is  to  allow  the 
Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  (IcSP)  to  extend  the  Union’s 
assistance  under  exceptional  circumstances  to  be  used  to  build  the  capacity  of 
military  actors  in  partner  countries  in  order  to  contribute  to  sustainable 
development and in particular the achievement of peaceful and inclusive societies. 

Development and Cooperation Committee's opinions 

184. 

(§ 462 - 2014/PAR/0421) The European Parliament invites DG DEVCO to urgently 
address the various weaknesses in its evaluation and monitoring systems pointed to 
in  the  Court's  special  report  specially  those  related  to  serious  deficiencies  of  DG 
DEVCO's evaluation system. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The  systems  for  strategic  evaluations  are  considered  as  overall  reliable  by  the 
Commission even though they could be further improved. Regarding programmes, 
evaluations  systems  exist  but,  in  some  areas,  are  not  functioning  properly.  Many 
improvements have been made since the release of the Court's Special Report on 
"EuropeAid’s evaluation and results-oriented monitoring systems". In relation to 
monitoring, the Court's Special Report related to the external support system ROM 
used by the Commission. For ROM, a fully revised system has been put into place 
as from Spring 2015 and is operational. 

185. 

(§ 464 - 2014/PAR/0422) The European Parliament calls for the putting in place of 
formal  scrutiny  powers  in  relation  to  EDF,  possibly  through  an  inter-institutional 
agreement of a binding nature under Article 295 of the TFEU. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is not in a position to take the requested action. Formal scrutiny 
powers  of  the  European  Parliament  in  relation  to  the  EDF  depend  on  the 
budgetisation of the EDF, which is to be taken up in the elaboration of the Multi-
annual Financial Framework after 2020. 

Employment and Social Affairs Committee's opinions 

186. 

(§  470  -  2014/PAR/0423)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
develop result indicators and monitoring systems further in order to compare results 
with the agreed objectives, to be better informed when establishing future goals and 
to increase the efficiency of Union spending. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

All legal and implementing basic acts of the spending programmes under the 2014-
2020  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework 
(MFF)  contain  performance 
frameworks defining objectives and setting out indicators to measure progress, as 
well as monitoring, reporting and evaluation arrangements. Implementation of the 
performance  framework  is  updated  once  a  year  in  the  working  document 
accompanying  the  draft  budget  i.e.  the  Programme  Statements  (PS).  The  annual 
Management  and  Performance  Report  for  the  EU  Budget  brings  together 
information  on  both  the  performance  and  management  of  the  EU  budget  and 
provides a holistic view of how the EU budget is being used to support the Union's 
political priorities. 

In 2016, in the framework of the annual Draft Budget preparation and its Budget 
Focused on Results initiative the Commission has launched a quality screening of 
the indicators included in the Programme Statements. The screening process will 
help  selecting  the  most  suitable  indicators  for  reporting  on  budget  performance 
and  communicating  to  the  stakeholders.  The  Commission  will  continue  this 
process,  which  at  the  later  stage  should  allow  streamlining  and  potentially 
aggregating information provided by existing indicators. 

Regarding  the  ESI  Funds,  a  common  Open  Data  Platform  was  launched  in 
December  2015  in  parallel  with  the  adoption  of  the  "Article  16  Report" 
(COM(2015)  639).  The  achievement  section  of  the  Open  Data  Platform  presents 
targets  set  for  selected  common  output  and  result  indicators.  From  end  2016 
onwards, the Commission will report each year to the Parliament and Council on 
the progressive achievement of the targets of the ESIF programmes by the means 
of Summary Reports, and Strategic Reports in 2017 and 2019, as required by the 
Common Provision Regulation (Regulation 13030/2013) in its article 53. 

187. 

(§  472  -  2014/PAR/0424)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
introduce further measures that encourage the active participation of SMEs including 
the application of the think-small-first principle. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission agrees on the importance to encourage the active participation of 
SMEs  in  Union  funding  programmes  and  recalls  that  considerable  efforts  have 
been done in the design of the 2014-2020 programmes. In the context of the mid-
term  review  of  the  MFF,  the  Commission  proposes  further  simplification  in  the 
Financial  Regulation  and,  when  relevant,  rules  of  the  various  programmes, 
making easier the participation of small businesses. The Commission also suggests 
to extend the SME Initiative, allowing the combination of ESIF and Horizon 2020 
/ COSME funds in new financial instruments, as well as the reinforcement of the 
SME Window of EFSI. 

188. 

(§ 473 - 2014/PAR/0425) The European Parliament notes that the intangible nature 
of investments in human capital, the diversity of the activities and the involvement of 
multiple, often small-scale partners in the implementation of projects continue to be 
the main risks to regularity of spending of ESF expenditure; calls on the Commission 

100 

 
 
 
to  continue  with  specific  mitigating  actions,  including  both  preventative  and 
corrective measures. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

When  the  Commission  identifies  deficiencies  in  the  management  verifications  it 
issues  a  reservation  for  the  concerned  programme  and  stops  the  payments. 
Interruptions  and  suspensions  are  incentives  for  Member  States  to  have  good 
systems  in  place  and  to  timely  take  remedial  actions,  including  financial 
corrections.  The  Commission  uses  these  legal  tools  consistently  and  as  soon  as 
serious deficiencies in management verifications are identified. 

The  implementation  of  preventive  and  corrective  measures  such  as  remedial 
actions  plans, interruptions and financial  corrections  has led to  improvements in 
the systems of programmes put under reservation. EU payments are resumed only 
where there is sufficient and reliable evidence that weaknesses had been remedied. 

The  Commission  carries  out  a  continuous  supervision  of  high  risk  programmes 
after  the  implementation  of  the  remedial  actions.  This  supervision  is  meant  to 
ensure that the management and control systems of programmes do not deteriorate 
again,  due  for  example  to  staff  turnover  and  staff  restrictions  in  public 
administrations. 

On the  preventive  side, the  Commission  provides  the  programme  authorities with 
the  necessary  guidance  (updated  guidance  for  2014-2020  provided  in  September) 
and targeted trainings for each of the implementation phases of the programmes, 
and  on  the  verification  of  public  procurement  or  State  aid  issues.  Commission 
checklists are shared with managing and audit authorities. Sharing good practices 
between  programmes  is  promoted.  The  new  Peer  2  Peer  instrument  available  to 
managing authorities will further help on this. 

189. 

(§ 478 - 2014/PAR/0426) The European Parliament expresses its concerns at the fact 
that  out  of  178  transactions  examined  by  the  Court  in  the  employment  and  social 
affairs  policy  area  62  (34,8  %)  were  affected  by  error,  out  of  which  12  were 
quantifiable  errors  exceeding  20  %  (6,7%);  urges  the  Commission  to  implement 
corrective measures and apply strict procedures to reduce the risk of irregularities in 
this policy area as well as to follow up the cases of ineligible expenditure identified 
by the Court. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts this recommendation. 

The  Commission  notes  that  the  error  rate  calculated  for  2014  by  the  Court  is 
within  the  range  it  has  reported  since  2011  and  remains  well  below  the  levels 
reported for the previous programming period 2000-2006. However the error rate 
remains too high and the Commission is taking specific actions in order to mitigate 
further  the  risks  identified.  This  includes  in  particular  preventive  and  corrective 
measures  such  as  further  guidance,  training  and  simplification  in  addition  to 

101 

 
 
 
 
targeted,  risk-based  on-the-spot  audits  and  a  strict  and  timely  policy  on 
interruptions/suspensions of payments and financial corrections as soon as serious 
deficiencies or irregularities are detected, either by national or EU audits. Closure 
procedures  in  2017  will  offer  Member  States  and  the  Commission  additional 
possibilities  to  filter  out  any  residual  level  of  material  irregularities.  In  addition, 
the  Commission  will  follow  up  the  cases  identified  by  the  Court  and  propose 
actions as it deems necessary by 30/04/2017. 

Reinforced procedures are foreseen in the regulatory framework for the 2014-2020 
programming  period.  Management  verifications  and  controls  (including  on-the-
spot  checks)  will  have  to  be  carried  out  before  the  annual  certification  to  the 
Commission of programme accounts and submission of management declarations 
by  the  managing  authorities.  Audit  authorities  will  express  an  opinion  on  the 
residual level of errors after correction. The Commission may impose net financial 
corrections  to  the  programme  if  serious  deficiencies  in  management  verification 
remain  undetected  or  uncorrected  before  submission  of  the  accounts.  The 
Commission  considers  that  these  reinforced  control  procedures  will  result  in 
lasting reductions of the error rate. The first results of these reinforced procedures 
will be  reported in DG EMPL 2016 annual  activity report to  be published end of 
April 2017. 

The  Commission  has  simplified  the  rules  for  the  2014-2020  period.  The 
Commission  has  reviewed  the  public  procurement  rules  and  has  issued  new  and 
clearer rules for State aid. Member States must take up simplifications offered for 
the  new  programmes:  i)  avoid  'gold  plating'  (adding  national  complexity  in  the 
eligibility  rules);  ii)  ensure  efficient  –  not  necessarily  more  –  controls  through 
continuous training; iii) ensuring that expertise is retained in the administration, 
avoiding unnecessary staff turnover. The Commission has also been encouraging 
Member  States  to  make  full  use  of  simplified  costs  options  provided  for  in  the 
Regulations  as  the  ECA  has  not  find  any  quantifiable errors  in  operations  using 
SCOs. 

190. 

(§  481  -  2014/PAR/0427)  The  European  Parliament  encourages  Member  States  to 
use  the  risk  assessment  tool  Arachne  and  encourages  the  Commission  to  continue 
providing  Member  States  with  relevant  guidelines  and  technical  assistance  for  the 
correct  implementation  of  the  management  and  control  requirements  in  the  2014-
2020  period;  insists  that  the  Commission  enhance  the  exchange  of  good  practices 
between Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

The  Commission  continues  to  provide  support  to  Member  States  helping  them  to 
comply with their obligation under article 125.4c) of the  2014-2020 regulation to 
"put in place effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures taking into account 
the risks identified". In this respect, the Commission has further promoted the use 
by  Member  States  of,  on  one  hand,  a  specific  fraud  risk  assessment  tool  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  of  the  risk  scoring  tool  ARACHNE,  developed  by  EMPL  in 
cooperation with DG REGIO. 

102 

 
 
 
The  scope  and  functionalities  of  ARACHNE  have  been  presented  by  EMPL  to 
Member  States  on  various  occasions.  Advanced  training  sessions  and  Arachne 
workshops have been organized to support the Member States with the integration 
of the Arachne tool in their daily management verification and control processes. 

Regarding ARACHNE, in June 2016, the situation was as follows: 

-  21  Member  States  are  "involved  in  ARACHNE"  (17  are  testing  the  tool  for  at 
least 1 Operational Programme (IT, PT, CZ, RO, LV, HR, PL, BE, BG, HU, ES, 
FR,  SK,  NL,  EE,  UK,  MT  ):  4  are  finalising  their  data  files  for  upload  and 
subsequent testing (CY, SI, AT, LU)) 

- 5 Member States are (still) in 'reflexion' phase (SE, IE, LT, DK, FI) 

- 2 have decided not to use (DE, GR). GR informed us that they will reconsider to 
use Arachne. 

By  the  end  of  2017,  a  review  of  the  use  of  ARACHNE  (and  its  potential  for 
effectively helping Member States to detect potentially fraud) will be performed. 

In addition, for the 2014-2020 programming period the Commission has developed 
an audit IT tool, called MAPAR (Management of  Audit Processes, Activities and 
Resources) that will allow having a common base with all audit findings, including 
on  audit  authorities  and  on  public  procurement.  This  tool  will  also  contain 
reported good practices between Member States. 

191. 

(§  482  -  2014/PAR/0428)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
follow the Court´s recommendations to ensure that the implementation of the Union 
budget better contributes to the achievement of the employment and social headline 
targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Commission's response: 

the 

transposition  of 

the  Europe  2020  strategy 

Regarding 
in  operational 
programmes,  the  Commission  considers  that  ESI  Funds  do  contribute  to  the 
achievement of the political priorities of the Union and there is an explicit link to 
the  Europe  2020  strategy  through  the  partnerships  agreements,  the  thematic 
objectives of the operational programmes and the introduction of a common set of 
indicators for each of the five ESI funds. Description of those contributions can be 
also found in the Annual Management Performance Report of the EU Budget on 
yearly  basis.  Further  information  and  details  on  progress  on  objective  and 
performance  are  available  in  the  Programme  Statement,  which  have  been 
improved,  encompassing  both 
information  on  programmes’ 
the  ex-post 
performance  and  ex-ante  estimations  in  terms  of  future  outputs  and  results.  In 
addition, the Commission reports and monitors consistently on thematic objectives 
and  common  indicators  for  all  five  ESI  funds  in  a  regular  manner.  The  first 
report, the so-called "Article 16" report has been produced 14 December 2015 by 
the Commission (COM(2015) 639, Investing in jobs and growth - maximising the 
contribution  of  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds)  and  reported  on  the 
expected results for the Growth and Jobs objective through the ESIF support using 
common indicators. From 2016 onwards, the Commission will report each year to 

103 

 
 
 
the  Council  and  the  Parliament  on  the  progressive  achievement  of  the  targets  of 
the programmes by the means of Summary Reports, and Strategic Reports in 2017 
and 2019, as required by the Common Provision Regulation for ESIF (regulation 
13030/2013) in its article 53. 

Transport and Tourism Committee's opinions 

192. 

(§ 509 - 2014/PAR/0429) The European Parliament calls on the Commission and the 
Member States, however, to ensure that transport projects are duly implemented. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  closely  monitors  the  implementation  of  the  transport  projects 
with  a  view  to  achieving  adequate  budgetary  execution  as  well  as  fulfilling  the 
planned objectives of the programmes. 

The  Commission  ensures  the  implementation  of  the  transport  projects  through 
different means, such as 

• ex-ante controls; 

•  assessment  of  the  technical  reports,  which  in  some  Programmes  may  have 
further pre-financing implications and commitments adjustments (only applicable 
to Multi-Annual Programmes); 

• direct and regular contacts with the beneficiaries and project promoters to detect 
and solve any implementing problems and take any necessary remedies; 

• technical site visits; 

• project management workshops. 

193. 

(§  510  -  2014/PAR/0430)  The  European  Parliament  regrets  that  for  the  area  of 
"Competitiveness  for  growth  and  employment",  to  which  transport  belongs  and  for 
which  transport  consists  of  the  smallest  amount  audited  by  the  Court  (EUR  0,8 
billion)  in  relation  to  the  total  audited  population  (EUR  13  billion),  the  estimated 
level of error was 5,6 % in 2014 (higher than the equivalent results in 2013 (4,0 %), 
caused mainly by the reimbursement of ineligible costs in research projects, but also 
by non-compliance with public procurement rules; calls on the  Commission to take 
all  appropriate  measures  to  rectify  this  situation  (including  by  carrying  out  more 
thorough ex ante checks in order to detect and correct errors before reimbursement). 

Commission's response: 

The Commission would like to clarify that the amount of EUR 0,8 billion is not the 
amount  audited  by  the  Court  as  regards  to  transport  but  represents  a  part  of  the 
total payments for 2014 related to transport. In addition, there are other transport 
payments included under the research amount. 

The  error  rate  reported  by  the  Court  is  one  indicator  of  the  effectiveness  of  the 
implementation of EU expenditure. However, the Commission has a multiannual 
control  strategy.  On  this  basis  its  services  estimate  a  residual  error  rate,  which 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
takes  account  of  recoveries,  corrections  and  the  effects  of  all  their  controls  and 
audits over the period of implementation of the programme. 

1. As it concerns the FP7 and H2020 Programme, for 2014 the residual error rate 
has been estimated at 3% and in 2015 at 2,65% for DG MOVE. 

The Commission has a sound system of ex ante controls in place including detailed 
automated checklists, written guidance and continuous training. The improvement 
of this system without imposing additional administrative burdens on beneficiaries, 
and whilst ensuring that payments are made promptly, is a constant challenge. The 
Court’s  findings  will  be  used  to  make  further  improvements  to  ex  ante  controls, 
including  further  improved  checklists,  guidance  and  possible  further  automation 
of controls. The Commission is also working together with national agencies and 
authorities  to  ensure  that  their  control  mechanisms  are  operational  to  their  full 
extent  to  prevent,  detect  and  correct  errors.  However,  as  all  FP7  contracts  have 
been  signed,  the  further  modification  of  the  legal  framework  is  no  longer  an 
option.  Over  the  course  of  FP7,  however,  the  Commission  has  attempted  to 
simplify  the  system  within  the  existing  legal  framework,  for  example  the 
simplification measures adopted by the Commission on 24 January 2011 (Decision 
C(2011) 174). 

Horizon 2020 includes a radical simplification of the legal framework, in order to 
meet the expectations of both stakeholders and legislative authorities, focusing in 
particular on personnel and indirect costs as the main sources of error. 

2. Concerning the TEN-T programme, the calculated residual error at the end of 
2014  is  0,84%  and  0,77%  for  2015  and  thus  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
implemented systems work effectively. 

194. 

(§  511  -  2014/PAR/0431)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  and 
other  relevant  actors  to ensure compliance  with  public  procurement  rules  and  costs 
eligibility of future transport projects. 

Commission's response: 

INEA  Executive  Agency  pays  particular  attention  to  the  compliance  of  all  the 
projects  receiving  EU  support  with  the  applicable  EU-law  requirements,  in 
particular  public  procurement  rules.  This  is  checked  and  monitored  during  the 
entire  project  life  cycle,  in  particular  at  the  steps  of  signature  of  the  Grant 
Agreement,  ex-ante  checks  for  interim  and  final  payments  as  well  as  ex-post 
audits.  In  case  of  non-compliance,  EU  financial  support  is  corrected  where 
necessary. 

195. 

(§  515  -  2014/PAR/0432)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  information  on 
transport and tourism projects is available in various databases, such as the Financial 
Transparency  System,  the  INEA  database  of  TEN-T  projects,  projects  co-funded 
through cohesion and regional funds as well as CORDIS for Horizon 2020 projects; 
calls  for  the  integration  of  project  information  from  these  tools  in  order  to  have  a 
better overview, both upstream and downstream, of the process of allocating Union 
funds. 

105 

 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

(1) Concerning the TEN-T funding, the list of projects is available in the Financial 
Transparency  System 
(http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.html).  Another 
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 
projects  and  additional  detailed  information  on  the  EU-funded  projects  will  be 
included in CORDIS (http://cordis.europa.eu/guidance/about-projects_en.html). 

(2) As far as Cohesion Policy is concerned, 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. 

196. 

(§ 516 - 2014/PAR/0433) The European Parliament points out that transport projects 
in 2014-2020 will be financed from several sources, including the CEF, the Cohesion 
Fund,  the  European  Fund  for  Regional  Development  and  the  EFSI;  calls  on  the 
Commission, therefore, to develop synergies that will enable these different sources 
of funding to allocate the funds available more efficiently. 

Commission's response: 

funding 
The  Commission  ensures  close  coordination  between  different 
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 

106 

 
 
 
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  in  order  to  ensure 
complementarity. 

2. The complementarity of the CEF resources dedicated to Financial Instruments 
with the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) will be secured through 
the approval process of the use of the EU Guarantee for the selected projects by the 
EFSI Investment Committee  and through the seal of approval of the CEF project 
pipeline  given  by  the  CEF  Debt  Instrument  Steering  Committee.  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  delegation  agreements 
between the European Commission and the European Investment Bank have been 
agreed and are applied to all projects supported through Financial Instruments or 
related  Technical  Assistance  under  the  common  Framework  Administrative  and 
Financial Agreement (FAFA). 

197. 

(§  520  -  2014/PAR/0434)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
make  an  impact  assessment  of  financed  projects  in  order  to  better  define  future 

107 

 
 
spending priorities which are in line with the Union as the number one world's tourist 
destination,  and  enabling  the  tourism  sector  as  a  key  potential  growth  area  for  the 
Union economy; calls on the Commission to include the results of the pilot projects 
and  preparatory  actions  in  the  next  year's  budget  planning  and  to  provide  a  readily 
accessible annual list of projects in this field. 

Commission's response: 

The European Commission conducted an evaluation of tourism related co-funded 
projects implemented under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP 
2007-2013) in the context of the impact assessment  (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011SC1452&from=EN)  for  the  Programme  for 
the  competitiveness  of  enterprises  and  SMEs  (COSME  2014-2020).  The  main 
conclusion was that, even if Europe is still world’s No 1 tourism destination, there 
remains room for improvement in the visibility of Europe as a tourist destination. 
There  is  a  general  lack  of  knowledge  outside  Europe  about  European  tourist 
destinations  and  inside  the  Union  about  thematic  tourism  products  such  as 
cultural  and  sustainable  tourism.  The  impact  assessment  study  concluded  that 
there  is  clear  added  value  in  taking  initiative  at  the  EU-level  especially  in  the 
following areas: the consolidation of the knowledge base in the tourism sector by 
the means of pan-European surveys and studies to better understand the demand 
and the supply side, without which data comparability and consistency across the 
EU  would  not  be  achieved;  the  development  of  joint  transnational  strategies  for 
tourism  promotion  of  Europe  as  home  to  high  quality  and  sustainable  tourist 
destinations; as well as the extension of the tourism season, which could be done 
better  with  exchanges  between  different  Member  States  than  by  each  country 
individually.  These  conclusions  were  used  for  the  design  of  tourism  related 
components in the ongoing COSME programme. 

The tourism projects co-funded under the COSME Programme will be evaluated in 
the  context  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Programme  as  foreseen  in  the 
Regulation (COM/2011/0834 final - 2011/0394 (COD). (Art 15.3 - By 2018 at the 
latest,  the  Commission  shall  establish  an  interim  evaluation  report  on  the 
achievement  of  the  objectives  of  all  the  actions  supported  under  the  COSME 
programme  at  the  level  of  results  and  impacts,  the  efficiency  of  the  use  of 
resources and its European added value, with a view to a decision on the renewal, 
modification or suspension of the measures). 

An  overview  of  projects  co-funded  by  the  European  Commission  under  the 
Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Programme  (CIP),  the  Programme  for  the 
Competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs (COSME) as well as under different pilot 
projects  and  preparatory  actions  can  be  found  on  the  European  Commission 
tourism  website  (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/).  For  projects  under 
COSME which are implemented by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises (EASME), the main results of the projects financed can be found 
on the EASME website (https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/cosme). Furthermore, a list 
of  beneficiaries  of  projects  financed  under  COSME  is  publicly  available  on  the 
website of the Programme (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/cosme_en). 

108 

 
 
 
Regional Development Committee's opinions 

198. 

(§  523  (first  part)  -  2014/PAR/0435)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the 
Commission to provide timely information and training to authorities with a view on 
public procurement and state aid rules. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the recommended actions. 

It  has  carried  out  and  continues  carrying  out  actions  to  support  further 
professionalization of the management of the funds. It has set-up a self-assessment 
tool  to  help  Member  States'  administrations  to  identify  competency  gaps  among 
their  staff  and  define  training  and  recruitment  needs.  Implementation  of  a 
strategic  training  programme  on  the  new  regulatory  requirements  for  the  2014-
2020  programming  period  will  continue;  a  new  module  on  state  aid  will  be 
launched in autumn 2016. Exchanges of expertise in the framework of the TAIEX-
REGIO  PEER2PEER  instrument  -  an  expert  exchange  system  for  managing 
authorities and other key bodies involved in the management of the funds to share 
experiences  and  expertise  –  has  been  launched  in  March  2015,  and  recently  the 
decision  was  taken  by  the  REGIO  Board  of  Directors  to  prolong  the  initiative 
towards  end  2020.  It  provides  targeted  support  to  specific  Member  States  and 
exchange of good practices in areas such as public procurement and State aid. 

In addition, as regards public procurement, the Commission published in October 
2015 a guide to support public officials across the EU to avoid the most frequent 
errors  and  adopt  best  practices  in  public  procurement  of  projects  funded  by  the 
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). 

The  guide  helps  to  identify  and  avoid  areas  of  potential  risk  of  errors  in  public 
procurement, a major source of irregularities in the management of EU funds. By 
doing  so,  this  tool  will not  only  ensure  regularity  and  transparency,  but  will  also 
improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of public procurement with significant 
potential  gains  in  terms  of  fair  competition  and  quality  of  investments  for  the 
benefit  of  the  public  administrations,  the  companies  involved  and  the  end 
beneficiaries of the projects. 

The "Guidance for practitioners  on the  avoidance  of  the most common errors  in 
public procurement of projects funded by the European Structural and Investment 
Funds" 
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_pu
blic_proc_en.pdf) contains practical suggestions, series of good practices, real-life 
examples,  explanations  on  specific  topics,  case  studies  and  templates  and  useful 
links in order to help those who are involved in the day-to-day management of EU-
supported projects. It also describes the most common mistakes and explains how 
to avoid them and how to handle each situation. 

Two  pilot  projects  have  been  launched  with  the  OECD  in  BG  and  SK  to  support 
these Member States in completing their action plans (due to non-fulfilled ex ante 
conditionality on PP) with a special focus on developing and setting up a coherent 
training strategy. 

109 

 
 
 
 
See also reply to 2014/PAR/0322. 

Regarding State aid, the Commission has compiled an inventory of effective tools 
existing  in  various  Member  States  in  the  area  of  application  of  state  aid  rules 
linked to the management of the ESI Funds, and to identify good practices as well 
as general recommendations. The recommendation of the expert will serve as input 
for follow up actions. 

It  started  also  with  organization  of  country  specific  seminars  in  Member  States 
that do not fulfil the EAC related to State aid (Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic, 
Slovakia and Bulgaria). 

The objectives of the seminars are: 

-  To  reinforce  awareness  of  the  basic  principles  of  the  EU  State  aid  policy  in 

relation to the ESI Funds; 

-  To  present  changes  following  the  modernization  of  State  aid  policy, 
particularly  related to  de  minimis  rule  and  General  Block  Exemption  Regulation 
(GBER); 

- To discuss application of State aid in specific areas (sectors); 

-  To  bring  together  national  actors  responsible  for  State  aid  and  ESIF,  to 

enhance their cooperation and networking; 

- To exchange information on existing practices in the country, lessons learnt, 

achievements, areas of improvement and future initiatives; 

-  To  have  the  possibility  for  Q&A  sessions  with  the  Commission  and  national 

experts. 

The target groups are: 

-  Representatives  of  bodies  involved  in  the  management,  implementation  and 
control  of  the  ESI  Funds  –  Managing  Authorities,  Intermediate  Bodies,  Audit 
Authorities. 

- Representatives of regional and local authorities involved in implementation of 

the ESI Funds. 

- Representatives of the State aid competent authorities. 

- Other stakeholders involved in the  management,  implementation and control 

of the ESI Funds. 

Besides the country-specific seminars, the Commission started to organise in 2016 
thematic workshops for specialists open to all Member States. Their purpose is to 
disseminate  knowledge  and  exchange  experience  through  very  specific,  tailor-
made  workshop  focused  on  a  particular  issue.  The  first  thematic  seminar  took 
place in January 2016 in Brussels and was dedicated to R&D&I. In June 2016, a 
second  seminar  was  held  and  dedicated  to  State  aid  in  energy  projects.  It  will  be 
followed in September 2016 by a seminar on Regional aid and state aid for SMEs 
and in November 2016 one on Transport. 

Based on the high demand for awareness raising events on State aid DG REGIO 
decided  to  roll  out  a  dedicated  series  of  State  aid  training  modules  for  Cohesion 

110 

 
 
Policy specialists from Member States. They are developed together with EIPA and 
there  will  be  two  two-days  sessions  held  in  Brussels  in  November  and  December 
2016.  The  scope  of  these  seminars  is  broader  and  less  sector  specific  than  the 
above mentioned sector seminars. 

More 
here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/how/improving-investment/state-aid/ 

information 

found 

can 

be 

199. 

(§  523  (second  part)  -  2014/PAR/0436)  The  European  Parliament  notes  the 
application of the Integrity Pacts initiative and urges the Commission to carry out an 
appropriate  ex-ante  evaluation  as  to  their  potential  to  really  improve  transparency 
and efficiency in public procurement as regards ESI Funds. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the recommended action: it considers the pilot initiative 
with the 17 IP's running until end 2019 as  a test to find out if this tool could be 
further  explored.  Similarly  to  an  ex-ante  evaluation,  this  pilot  initiative  will  help 
for further developments in the future. 

Following the call for expression of interest published in May 2015, 17 projects co-
financed  by  the  EU  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  were  selected  for  the  pilot 
phase  of  the  integrity  pacts.  They  were  submitted  by  managing  authorities  and 
beneficiaries, while the selected civil society organisations (CSO) were applying to 
act as Integrity Pact (IP) monitors. 

research  and  development, 

This  resulted  in  the  selection  of  a  good  mix  of  projects  from  different  sectors 
(transport,  institutional  building,  culture,  monitoring,  environment,  energy, 
education, 
investment, 
administrative  capacity  and  health  care)  in  11  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Czech 
Republic, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Portugal, Romania, Italy 
and Poland). The lessons learnt from these pilots will be disseminated and can be 
applied to many other EU co-financed projects in the future. 

integrated 

territorial 

In  January  2016  the  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Regional 
and Urban Policy signed a Multi-Beneficiary Grant Agreement with Transparency 
International for the implementation of "Integrity Pacts - civil control mechanisms 
for  safeguarding  EU  funds,  Phase  II”  project  which  will  run  for  4  years.  The 
general objective of this pilot initiative is to safeguard EU funds against fraud and 
corruption and to enhance trust in public authorities and government contracting. 

The Transparency International Secretariat will ensure overall coordination of the 
project.  It  will  coordinate  the  Civil  Society  Organisations  (CSO's)  which  will 
monitor  the  IP  and  carry  out  quality  assurance  of  project  implementation  at  all 
levels, promotion and dissemination of the project results, necessary training and 
capacity building, capturing  and dissemination of impact, lessons learnt and best 
practices. 

The  Commission  expects  that  the  Integrity  Pact  project  will  foster  a  culture  of 
public  demand  for  accountability  in  the  allocation  and  disbursement  of  public 
funds  by  ensuring  transparency  and  engaging  citizens  in  monitoring  of  public 
procurement procedures. 

111 

 
 
 
200. 

(§ 523 (third part) - 2014/PAR/0437) The European Parliament calls on the Member 
States to fulfil the ex-ante conditionality concerning public procurement by the end 
of  2016  and  to  transpose  the  2014  Public  Procurement  Directives  into  their  legal 
systems  by  April  2016,  in  order  to  avoid  irregularities  and  ensure  effective  and 
efficient projects implementation and achievement of the envisaged results and hence 
the  cohesion  policy’s  goals;  calls  on  the  Commission  to  strictly  supervise  this 
process  providing  the  respective  guidance  and  technical  assistance  to  the  Member 
States in the context of the correct transposition of these Directives into national law. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is strictly supervising the transposition process related to the EU 
public  procurement  directives  adopted  in  2014.  In  this  regard,  the  Commission 
diligently  took  legal  action  and  opened  infringement  procedures  against  all 
Member States which had not fully transposed the aforementioned directives by the 
set  deadline  (18  April  2016).  With  regard  to  those  Member  States  which  have 
already  notified  national  transposition  measures,  the  Commission  will  perform 
appropriate  legal  and  factual  verifications  for  compliance  with  the  EU  public 
procurement framework. 

In  the  context  of  transposition,  the  Commission  is  providing  guidance  and 
technical  assistance  to  the  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  the  specifically 
dedicated  thematic  meetings  of  the  Commission-Government  experts  Group  on 
Public  Procurement.  Moreover,  the  Commission  holds  bilateral  meetings  with 
national  administrations  and  has  already  organised  several  cross-Member  States 
seminars  on  selected  topics.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  has  provided  and 
continues  providing  numerous  answers  to  concrete  questions  raised  by  Member 
States  and  made  available  to  national  administrations  the  specifically  elaborated 
correlation tables indicating similarities and differences between the provisions of 
the  old  and  the  new  directives.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  also  set  up  the 
online platform Wiki for clarifying of public procurement-related questions as well 
as  for  spreading  information  and  best  practice  exchange  amongst  the  Member 
States. 

The  Commission  is  closely  monitoring  those  Member  States  that  are  still 
implementing their action plans until the end of 2016 due to non fulfilled ex ante 
conditionalities  on  public  procurement.  The  Commission  has  sent  early  warning 
letters at high political level about the risk of delays and  its potential consequences 
and  the  different  services  hold  regular  monitoring  meetings  with  the  Member 
States  to  discuss  the  state  of  progress  of  individual  actions.  In  specific  cases 
concrete support is offered via e.g. PEER 2 PEER exchange system with experts in 
other Member States and direct support to actions under the action plan with the 
OECD  in  Slovakia  and  Bulgaria  (e.g.  development  of  straining  strategy  and  e-
procurement strategy). 

201. 

(§  525  -  2014/PAR/0438)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission, 
Member States and the regional authorities to ensure that beneficiaries are provided 
with  consistent  information  about  funding  conditions,  particularly  concerning  the 
eligibility of expenditure and the relevant ceilings for reimbursement. 

112 

 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  recommendation  is  partially  accepted  as  most  of  the  responsibility  lies  with 
Member States and programme authorities. 

Apart  from  the  eligibility  rules  provided  at  EU  level  in  the  regulations,  the 
definition of national eligibility rules is a responsibility of the Member States as is 
the  requirement  for  programme  authorities  to  ensure  that  beneficiaries  are 
provided with consistent information on funding conditions etc. 

However,  the  Commission  provides  ongoing  advice  to  the  Member  States 
concerning  eligibility  rules.  A  guide  was  provided  to  its  staff  at  the  start  of  the 
programming  period  to  be  used  when  supporting  implementation  in  the  Member 
States  and  a  number  of  eligibility  issues  have  also  been  addressed  through 
guidance  notes  discussed  with  Member  State  experts  and  then  made  publically 
available :http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/guidance/ 

202. 

(§  526  -  2014/PAR/0439)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
contribute  to  simplification  of  implementation  at  the  national  and  regional  level, 
while respecting Member States' institutional characteristics and providing them with 
the clarification necessary to implement regulations. 

Commission's response: 

The  legislative  package  for  the  2014-2020  period  includes  new  initiatives  to 
harmonise  and  simplify  the  implementation  of  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  (ESI)  Funds  including  increased  proportionality  in  management  and 
control.    The  issue  of  simplification  of  ESI  Funds  is  part  of  the  Commission's 
plans  on  better  regulation  and  better  results.    At  this  point  in  the  programming 
period, there is a need for stability of the rules and time for the new provisions to 
embed and start to deliver their potential simplification benefits. The Commission 
has launched a series of studies to understand better the take up and impact of the 
new provisions. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  set  up  the  High  Level  Group  on  Simplification  for 
beneficiaries  of  ESI  Funds  in  July 2015  to  provide  advice to  the  Commission  on 
simplification  and  they  have  been  asked  to  make  recommendations  for  concrete 
actions  that  can  maximise  the  potential  for  simplification  in  the  current  period 
(2014-2020) and for the post 2020 period. 

They presented their first conclusions and recommendations on e-Governance and 
simplified costs to the Commission on 1 March 2016.  A second set on the subjects 
of  access  to  EU  Funds  for  SMEs  and  financial  instruments  is  expected  by  mid-
2016. 

As  shown  in  the  overview  report  on  the  use  of  "Simplified  Cost  Options  in  the 
European  Social  Fund",  submitted  to  the  CONT  Committee  in  November  2015, 
the  Commission  has  conducted  simplification  seminars  since  2011  in  almost  all 
Member States, strongly promoting the use of Simplified Cost Options already for 
the  programming  period  2007-2013  and  actively  supporting  Member  States  in 

113 

 
 
 
 
order to leverage their full potential. The positive impact of such simplification is 
acknowledged by the Court in its Annual Reports over the last 3 years, where the 
Court states that they are less prone to errors. This reflects in the reduction of the 
error rate, in particular in the case of the ESF, where the error rate for the period 
2011-2014 has been on average 3%, significantly lower than in previous years, and 
has  also  a  positive  impact  on  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  on 
beneficiaries.  The  ESIF  2014-2020  regulations  further  strengthen  simplification 
opportunities  and  the  Commission  continues  to  actively  support  Member  States 
since the beginning of the programming period in order to maximise their effective 
take up. 

203. 

(§  527  -  2014/PAR/0440)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that  administrative 
capacity  is  essential  for  regular  and  efficient  use  of  ESI  Funds  and  calls  on  the 
Commission  and  Member  States  to  reinforce  the  exchange  of  knowledge  and  good 
practices  on  specific  implementation  topics  (e.g.  public  procurement,  State  aid, 
eligibility criteria and audit trail) in particular for potential beneficiaries which have 
fewer administrative and financial capacities. 

Commission's response: 

See reply to 2014/PAR/0314. 

204. 

(§ 528 - 2014/PAR/0441) The European Parliament considers, furthermore, that the 
Commission should efficiently and effectively implement all available tools for early 
detection  and  prevention  of  risks  in  cohesion  policy,  and  more  specifically  data 
mining  tools,  such  as  ARACHNE,  for  the  early detection and  prevention  of  risk in 
public  procurement  procedure;  since  the  context  of  the  activities  of  the  Task  Force 
for  Better  Implementation  also  includes  activities  which  could  enhance  efficiency, 
effectiveness  and  added  value  of  cohesion  policy  projects  that  have  already  been 
implemented,  the  Commission  is  called  to  assess  these  features  through  qualitative 
indicators. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is actively promoting their use by responsible national authorities 
of  Arachne,  a  preventive  risk-scoring  tool  it  has  developed.  This  tool  may  bring 
significant  improvements  in  the  prevention  and  detection  of  various  risks  related 
for example to public procurement procedures, conflicts of interest, concentration 
of grants under particular operators. It can also help identifying red flags of fraud 
suspicion. 

ARACHNE has been designed to help Member States in management verifications 
and as a fraud alert tool. It includes a number of risk indicators linked to public 
procurement,  such  as:  lead  time  between  publication  of  the  tender  notice  and 
contract  signature  date;  number  of  disqualified  tenders  /number  of  tenders 
received; number of valid tenderers; amount of contracts procured via negotiated, 
restricted  procedure  or  via  direct  award  /total  Project  Cost;  number  of  contract 
addenda compared to the average per sector; financial correction to procurement 
procedure applied in the past in relation to the beneficiary. 

114 

 
 
 
 
identifies 

involvement  of  beneficiaries,  contractors  and 
ARACHNE 
subcontractors  in  different  projects  and  programmes  but  also  identifies  the  links 
between entities involved in the implementation of a project. 

the 

Regarding ARACHNE, in June 2016, the situation was as follows: 

-  21  Member  States  are  "involved  in  ARACHNE"  (17  are  testing  the  tool  for  at 
least 1 Operational Programme (IT, PT, CZ, RO, LV, HR, PL, BE, BG, HU, ES, 
FR,  SK,  NL,  EE,  UK,  MT  ):  4  are  finalising  their  data  files  for  upload  and 
subsequent testing (CY, SI, AT, LU)) 

- 5 Member States are (still) in 'reflexion' phase (SE, IE, LT, DK, FI) 

- 2 have decided not to use (DE, GR). GR informed us that they will reconsider to 
use Arachne. 

By  the  end  of  2017,  a  review  of  the  use  of  ARACHNE  (and  its  potential  for 
effectively helping Member States to detect potentially fraud) will be performed. 

Agriculture and Rural Development Committee's opinions 

205. 

(§  531  -  2014/PAR/0442)  The  European  Parliament  urges,  in  extreme  cases,  that 
their 
consistently  underperforming  paying  agencies  should  be  stripped  of 
accreditation. 

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 (Regulation 1306/2013). 
Nevertheless,  the  Commission  takes  the  view  that  new  powers  to  withdraw 
accreditation  in  cases  of  "consistently  underperforming  paying  agencies"  would 
not  solve  the  problem  is  mainly  about  certain  deficiencies  in  controls,  which 
should  be  remedied  by  Member  States.  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. 

(§  541  -  2014/PAR/0443)  The  European  Parliament  calls  for  a  reasonable, 
proportional  and  effective  policy  on  sanctions  to  support  this  approach,  such  as 
avoiding double sanctioning for the same error under both the payment scheme and 
cross-compliance; urges the Commission to better ensure proportionality of penalties 
in relation to the type of error; calls for instruments for a more incentivised, output-
driven  approach  which  could  offer  reduced  error  and  inspection  rates  and  make  it 
more possible to distinguish between error and fraud, while ensuring that farmers are 
still able to deliver the vital food production at the heart of the policy. 

206. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
207. 

Commission's response: 

First of all, the applicable legislation clearly prevents double sanctioning when the 
same non-compliance concerns eligibility conditions and cross-compliance (Article 
5 of Regulation 809/2014). 

However, the Commission points out that under shared management, it is Member 
States'  responsibility  to  calculate  and  impose  sanctions,  taking  account  of  the 
principle  of  proportionality.  It  is  also  for  the  Member  States  to  carry  out  checks 
and conclude whether a given irregularity should be treated as fraud or not. 

(§  546  -  2014/PAR/0444)  The  European  Parliament  notes  the  agreement  between 
Commission and Court that rural development expenditure is governed by complex 
rules  and  eligibility  conditions,  partly  due  to  the  nature  of  the  policy  and  the 
heterogeneity  of  European  regions,  calls  for  enhancement  of  the  simplification  and 
preventive  measures  included  in  the  2014-2020  rules  and  calls  in  addition  for  that 
simplification to be delivered at Member State level in the new Rural Development 
programmes  as  a  priority  and  as  an  important  means  of  reducing  error  rates  and 
improving  efficiency  and  flexibility,  thereby  increasing  the  absorption  capacity, 
particularly  where  small-scale  programmes,  may  have  attracted  less  interest  and/or 
shown consistently high error rates as a result of their inflexibility in the past. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  agrees  in  general  that  simplification  is  crucial  when  designing 
rural development measures, but considers that this recommendation is addressed 
to  the  Member  States  who  are  responsible  for  drafting  their  rural  development 
programmes. 

Simplification  of  the  CAP,  and  notably  Rural  Development,  is  a  priority  for  the 
Commission.  For  instance,  the  2014-2020  legal  framework  required  that  both 
Managing  Authorities  and  Paying  Agencies  undertook  an  ex-ante  assessment  of 
each programme proposal to certify that the measures programmed are verifiable 
and  controllable.  The  Commission  services  thoroughly  analysed  this  assessment 
during  the  approval  process  and,  where  relevant,  issued  specific  comments.  This 
process  also  permitted  identification  of  relevant  issues  to  be  specifically  followed 
up  during  the  programme  implementation.  The  European  Network  for  Rural 
Development is now playing an enhanced role in disseminating good practices and 
guidance. As an example, in 2015 training for Managing Authorities and Paying 
Agencies has been carried out in relation to the following topics: simplified costs 
options,  reasonableness  of  costs,  public  procurement  and  result-oriented  agri-
environment payments. 

208. 

(§  547  -  2014/PAR/0445)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
submit in good time a detailed plan for reducing red tape in the context of the CAP. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission maintains its strong commitment to working on simplification of 
the CAP rules. Many actions have already been taken. 

116 

 
 
 
 
In early 2015 Commissioned Hogan launched a comprehensive screening exercise 
to  assess  the  scope  for  simplification  of  the  post-2013  rules  and  invited  EU 
institutions,  Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  provide  their  proposals  for 
simplification.  More  than  800  pages  were  submitted  containing  over  1500 
proposals  in  total.  Following  assessment  of  these  proposals  the  Commission  has 
already  started  undertaking  actions  (by  means  of  amendments  to  Commission 
regulations or by means of guidance documents) to simplify the implementation of 
the  policy  both  for  farmers  and  other  beneficiaries  of  the  CAP  and  for  national 
administrations.  Amendments  to  the  existing  legislation  (implementing  and 
delegated acts) have been proposed, some have already been adopted, some are still 
being discussed. 

209. 

(§ 548 - 2014/PAR/0446) The European Parliament urges both the Commission and 
Member  State  authorities  to  continue  to  address  and  reduce  the  complexities  in 
relation to direct payments wherever possible and give high priority to simplification 
of the greening measures, particularly if there are many different levels involved in 
the  administration  of  EAGF  and  rural  development  funds  within  Member  States, 
with different approaches for the two pillars where necessary. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has demonstrated its strong commitment to simplifying the rules. 

In  relation  to  management  of  direct  payments,  the  Commission  has  already 
adopted  an  amendment  to  the  implementing  regulation  on  IACS,  introducing  a 
series  of  changes  to  the  rules  in  order  to  give  Member  States  more  flexibility  in 
relation  to  controls  and  make  life  easier  for  farmers.  Among  them  was  the 
possibility for farmers to modify the declaration of parcel use for greening after the 
submission  of  the  application,  which  means  more  flexibility  for  farmers  in 
managing the land. 

The Commission would emphasize that simplification should be considered a joint 
effort,  so  Member  States  should  endeavour  to  avoid  additional  complexity  at 
national level. 

210. 

(§ 552 - 2014/PAR/0447) The European Parliament calls for analysis of the overall 
effect of the two pillars of the CAP in rural areas, on where and how the funds are 
allocated and focusing on the real final beneficiaries. 

Commission's response: 

Detailed reporting on the effect of the CAP on the final beneficiaries can be found 
in the performance part of the Annual Activity Report (including Annex 11) of the 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. The Commission has 
committed itself to increase its performance reporting in its future AARs. 

211. 

(§  555  -  2014/PAR/0448)  The  European  Parliament  welcomes  the  Commission 
decision  establishing  exceptional  aid  schemes  for  countries  that  sustained  losses  in 
the  dairy  sector  and  calls  on  the  Commission  to  consider  further  aid  measures  for 
sectors facing similar problems. 

117 

 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  constantly  monitoring  the  market  situation  and  takes 
appropriate actions whenever necessary. 

212. 

(§ 556 - 2014/PAR/0449) The European Parliament expresses concern that women in 
rural  areas  of  many  Member  States  have  only  limited  access  to  the  employment 
market and calls on the Commission, as a matter of priority in its future development 
initiatives, to assume the task of improving and increasing access to the employment 
market  for  women  in  rural  areas  and  to  allocate  adequate  funding  for  a  'European 
guarantee  for  rural  women',  similar  to  the  European  Youth  Guarantee  programme, 
setting separate targets for women in rural areas. 

Commission's response: 

Targets or indicators serve to  monitor and assess the effectiveness of the existing 
measures,  but  could  not  in  itself  lead  to  a  different  result.  The  Commission 
considers  that  setting  separate  targets  would  not  address  the  issue  raised  by  the 
European  Parliament.  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  does  not  question  that 
the  problem  exist.  However,  having  a  dedicated  measure  to  facilitate  access  to 
employment  to  women  in  rural  areas  would  require  amending  basic  act, 
Regulation  1305/2013.  The  Commission  could  consider  including  such  a  new 
measure for the CAP post 2020. 

213. 

(§ 557 - 2014/PAR/0450) The European Parliament urges the Commission to clarify 
the  rules  regarding  recognition  of  producer  organisations,  notably  in  the  fruit  and 
vegetables sector, and further to shorten lead times of Commission audits, in order to 
provide legal certainty to beneficiaries and avoid unnecessary errors. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  existing  rules  are  clear  and  emphasizes  that 
draft  regulations  are  always  extensively  discussed  with  the  representatives  of  the 
Member  States  in  management  committees  where  explanations  can  be  sought. 
Problems  arose  due  to  incorrect  implementation  of  the  rules  at  national  level. 
Therefore, the first part of the recommendation is rejected. 

As to shortening audit enquiries, the Commission considers that action has already 
been taken to address the issue. New legal framework provides for deadlines in the 
conformity clearance procedures, which entails that a standard enquiry should be 
finalised within two years. 

214. 

(§  562  -  2014/PAR/0451)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
assess the effectiveness of payments to promote sales in third countries and to ensure 
that these measures do not crowd local producers out of the market. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission considers that the CAP measures are implemented in accordance 
with  impact  assessment  carried  out.  The  Commission  monitors  the  market 
situation and takes appropriate steps when necessary. 

Fisheries Committee's opinions 

215. 

(§  571  -  2014/PAR/0452)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission exert greater pressure on Member States to submit reliable data. 

Commission's response: 

This recommendation is partially implemented. Implementation is continuous until 
the end of the eligibility period, i.e. 31.12.2023. 

A  series  of  activities  has  been  undertaken  to  support  Member  States  in  reporting 
more  reliable  data.  As  the  EMFF,  in  the  current  financing  period,  for  the  first 
time, sees a common monitoring and evaluation (CMES) the Commission has set 
up a fisheries and aquaculture monitoring and evaluation unit (FAME) to support 
both Commission and Member States in the implementation of the new reporting 
requirements. FAME has been operational since autumn 2015. 

Some of the most important activities undertaken by the Commission include: 

•  The  drafting  of  a  working  paper  on  the  definition  of  indicators  of  the  common 
monitoring and evaluation system (CMES) (first draft of November 2015). 

•  The  publication  of  target  values  as  adopted  with  the  EMFF  Operational 
Platform 
Programmes 
(https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/) on EU aggregate level (November 2015). 

(OPs) 

ESIF 

Open 

Data 

the 

on 

• The conduction of a workshop with Member States on the definition of selected 
indicators (March 2016). 

• Responses to around 30 individual questions by Member States on the reporting 
of data. 

The support to Member States in providing reliable data is an on-going task. The 
coming months will see further activities, such as: 

• A second workshop with Member States on further indicators in autumn 2016. 

• The publication of target and achievement data on the ESIF Open Data Platform 
at Member State level as from the 2nd half of 2016. 

216. 

(§ 572 - 2014/PAR/0453) The European Parliament urges the Commission to provide 
all  possible  support  for  the  Member  States  with  a  view  to  ensuring  proper  and  full 
use of EMFF resources, with high implementation rates, in line with their respective 
priorities  and  needs,  in  particular  as  regards  the  sustainable  development  of  the 
fisheries sector. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

This recommendation is partially implemented. Implementation is continuous until 
the end of the eligibility period, i.e. 31.12.2023. 

The  Commission  is  continuously  providing  advice  to  the  MS  to  help  them  in  the 
most  effective  implementation  of  their  Operational  Programmes  (OPs).  The 
Commission  is  member  of  the  monitoring  committee  where  review  of  the 
implementation and progress made towards to the objectives of the OPs is taking 
place.  In  addition,  the  Commission  provides  advice  through  individual  bilateral 
meetings  and  in  particular  during  the  Annual  Review  meeting.  Horizontal 
questions  of  implementation  are  discussed  at  least  three  times  per  year  in  the 
EMFF expert group. 

The Commission is going to continuously monitor the implementation of the OPs 
and provide advice to the MSs until the end of the eligibility period of the EMFF 
OPs. 

217. 

(§  575  -  2014/PAR/0454)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission,  to 
ensure that  sectoral  support  disbursements  are consistent  with  other  budget  support 
payments  and  calls  for  an  improvement  of  the  results  achieved  by  the  partner 
countries in the implementation of the matrix of commonly agreed actions. 

Commission's response: 

This Recommendation is being implemented progressively. 

For  the  Commission,  underutilisation  is  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  There  is 
improved  coherence  and  consistency  between  the  implementation  of  development 
policies  and  the  disbursement  of  SFPA  (Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreements) sectoral support. This is applied on the basis of targeted, identifiable 
actions  with  clear  achievement  indicators  against  which  performance  can  be 
measured.  Other  donors'  actions  and  projects  are  also  taken  into  account  in  the 
matrix which is discussed in Joint Committees aiming at identifying the real needs 
of the partner countries and the final programme of activities. 

Disbursements  are  considered  in  that  context  and  if  it  is  observed  that  there  has 
not  been  adequate  utilisation  of  the  funding  provided,  payment  for  the  following 
years’ sectoral support contribution may be suspended. 

218. 

(§  579  -  2014/PAR/0455)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
monitor  more  closely  the  implementation  of  sectoral  support  in  order  to  ensure  its 
effectiveness. 

Commission's response: 

This  Recommendation  has  been  implemented.  The  Commission  is  now  closely 
following  the  implementation  of  the  sectoral  support  on  a  regular  basis  against 
detailed annual work programmes of our partner countries, which are based on a 
multi-annual  programme  identifying  the  principle  actions  to  be  undertaken 
throughout the duration of the respective Protocols. 

120 

 
 
 
 
Following  the  new  CFP,  payments  are  now  directly  linked  to  the  utilisation  and 
performance  of  the  sectoral  support.  Protocols  now  include  provisions  to 
"decouple"  the  payments  of  access  rights  and  sectoral  support  and  provisions  to 
allow for revision in justified cases, and ultimately a suspension of sectoral support 
payments. 

219. 

(§  581  -  2014/PAR/0456)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
include,  where  possible,  in  the  new protocols  the  possibility  of  partial  payments  of 
the sectoral support. 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  has  been  partially  implemented,  and  will  be  progressively 
followed as each new Protocol will be negotiated. 

New  protocols  negotiated  include,  to  the  extent  possible,  provisions  allowing  for 
partial  payments  of  sectoral  support  in  case  results  achieved  are  deemed  not 
satisfactory. 

Culture and Education Committee's opinions 

220. 

(§  587  and  §  591  -  2014/PAR/0457)  The  European  Parliament  notes  that  the 
mismatch  between  the  seven-year  programming  of  the  MFF  and  the  ten-year 
programming  of  the  political  and  strategic  priorities  of  the  Union  could  adversely 
affect the consistent evaluation of the results achieved by Union programmes; notes 
that the upcoming revision of the MFF is a key point in the management of Union 
spending  by  ensuring  Union  investment  programmes  remain  efficient;  insists  on  a 
thorough  simplification  of  the  application  forms  and  criteria,  especially  for  small 
scale projects, both in Erasmus+ and the Creative Europe programmes. 

Commission's response: 

Despite the context of the differing cycles of MFF programming and political and 
strategic  priorities,  the  Commission  is  able,  via  the  respective  Annual  Work 
Programmes,  to  ensure  there  is  flexible  adaptation  of  the  programmes  to  meet 
pressing  political  priorities,  such  as  social  inclusion,  deradicalisation,  and 
migration.  The  forthcoming  mid-term  evaluations  of  the  Erasmus+  and  Creative 
Europe  programmes  will  present  a  timely  opportunity  to  assess  the  effectiveness 
and confirm the efficient management of the programmes. 

In  preparing  the  2014-20  Erasmus+  and  Creative  Europe  programmes,  the 
Commission  performed  a  thorough  revision  of  the  funding  approach,  using 
simplified online applications, scales of unit costs and flat rates, and a streamlined 
workflow  assisted  by  IT  tools  at  each  stage  of  the  award  and  grant  management 
process.  This  new  approach  has  provided  a  more  straight-forward  process  for 
applicants, and is being monitored and adjusted as necessary during the life of the 
programme. Both the Erasmus+ and Creative Europe are well adapted to funding 
small scale projects, as demonstrated by the profile of projects selected in the first 
two years of the programmes. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
Erasmus+ 

The  Commission  has  taken  simplification  measures  in  Erasmus+  to  increase  the 
participation  of  small  organisations,  such  as  schools  and  grass-root  sport 
organisations. 

Concretely,  since  2014,  the  Commission  has  improved,  in  terms  of  length  and 
clarity,  the  templates  for  the  2016  grant  agreements  between  beneficiaries  and 
National Agencies in response to feedback expressed by programme stakeholders. 
Reports  which  participants  are  required  to  complete  after  completion  of  their 
mobility activities have been formulated to become simpler and more accessible to 
the  target  groups.  The  Commission  has  also  taken  measures  in  2015  to  increase 
the  number  of  participating  organisations  by  increasing  the  chances  of  smaller 
projects being selected. In the case of schools, this approach has proved successful, 
as preliminary data have shown that almost 20% more schools have been selected 
in 2015 than in 2014. However, in 2017 and beyond, the Commission will continue 
implementation.  Further 
its  efforts 
simplification of forms, in particular application forms, is being prepared for the 
2017 selections.  In addition, adjustments to the simplified forms of grants, notably 
their  extension  to  the  field  of  Sport,  are  planned  for  2017,  which  will  further 
facilitate  the  access  to  the  programme  for  grass  root  organisations.  The 
Commission  will  also  be  looking  into  possibilities  to  reduce  administrative 
requirements for organisations participating in Erasmus+ as project partners. 

further  simplify 

the  programme 

to 

Creative Europe 

The Creative Europe programme is open to many types of small scale projects, a 
notable example being literary translations, where in 2014 and 2015, a total of 145 
literary translation projects were selected within Creative Europe (accounting for 
41% of all projects funded under the programme in the same time span), entailing 
a grant of maximum € 100,000 each. 

Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee's opinions 

221. 

(§  597  -  2014/PAR/0458)  The  European  Parliament  regrets  the  fact  that  in  some 
Member  States,  laws  concerning  conflict  of  interest  of  members  of  the  parliament, 
government and local councils is vague and insufficient; calls on the Commission to 
examine  this  situation  and,  if  appropriate,  make  proposals  in  that  regard;  considers 
that  any  such  proposals  should  also  apply  to  existing  and  candidate  Commission 
members. 

Commission's response: 

Through  the  EU  Anti-corruption  reporting  mechanism  for  periodic  assessment 
("EU  Anti-corruption  Report")  created  by  Commission  Decision  C(2011)  3673 
final of 6 June 2011, the Commission assesses periodically anti-corruption policies 
across EU Member States, reviews the situation in each Member State as regards 
laws on conflict of interest and their implementation, and makes proposals where 
appropriate. 

122 

 
 
 
 
Gender issues Committee's opinions 

222. 

(§ 601 - 2014/PAR/0459) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to use 
gender budgeting analysis of both new and existing budget lines and, where possible, 
make  necessary  policy  changes  to  ensure  that  gender  inequality  does  not  occur 
indirectly. 

Commission's response: 

Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective for all relevant policy areas, including 
fundamental  rights  and  citizenship,  employment  and  social  inclusion,  cohesion 
policy, education, research and innovation, and external cooperation. In particular 
the  programmes  EaSI,  FEAD,  Consumers,  EMFF,  Health,  and  EGF  make 
reference to gender equality general principles while the programmes ESF, REC, 
Horizon  2020,  IPA  II,  Humanitarian  aid,  DCI,  EIDHR  and  Greenland  have 
specific  actions  related  to  gender  specific  issues.  In  its  planning  process  the 
Commission  undertakes  gender  budgeting  analysis  for  the  new  and  existing 
activities  financed  by  the  budget  lines  and,  where  possible,  ensure  that  gender 
inequality does not occur indirectly. 

In  particular,  in  the  field  of  external  actions,  the  Commission  follows  Gender 
Action  Plan  (GAP)  established  for  the  period  2016-2020  which  covers  the  EU's 
in  developing,  enlargement  and 
activities 
neighbourhood countries, including in fragile, conflict and emergency situations. 
A wide range of external assistance instruments support gender equality objectives 
as for example: 

third  countries,  especially 

in 

•  EU  Trust  Fund  for  Central  African  Republic  finances  specific  bilateral  or 
regional development support programmes (e.g. women's economic empowerment 
project) 

• Pan-African programme on female genital mutilation; 

•  Global  Public  Goods  and  Challenges  thematic  programme  included  in  the 
Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI)  with  around  EUR  100  million 
committed to improve the lives of girls and women. 

Gender  aspects  are  equally  taken  into  consideration  in  several  other  thematic 
actions  like food  security, rural development, private sector development, and for 
instance,  gender  specific  actions  will  be  developed  under  the  climate  change 
programme  for  the  years  2014-2016  (estimated  EUR  16  million,  DCI).  Finally 
gender is a key cross-cutting issue for the EU Instrument contributing to Stability 
and  Peace  (IcSP):  it  is  integrated  into  all  actions,  both  non-programmable  crisis 
response  measures  and  programmable  actions  on  conflict  prevention,  peace-
building  and  crisis  preparedness  In  this  regard,  key  priority  is  given  to  ensuring 
that all actions contribute to delivering on EU commitments on Women, Peace and 
Security (WPS). 

The  Commission's  Inter-Service  Group  on  equality  between  women  and  men 
composed  of  all  Commission  services  will  continue  to  monitor  and  steer  the 
integration  of  a  gender  equality  perspective  in  policy,  legal  and  spending 

123 

 
 
 
 
programme activities, including budgetary matters, across all EU policy areas and 
will consider issuing in 2017 a report on gender mainstreaming. 

223. 

(§  603  -  2014/PAR/0460)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
produce  an  assessment  of  the  impact  that  Union  financing  has  had  on  promoting 
gender equality. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  currently  no  horizontal  programme  which  exclusively 
addresses gender equality and on which basis impact of Union financing could be 
assessed  across  different  policy  areas.  There  are  however  sectoral  funding 
programmes  where  gender  equality  aspects  are  addressed  if  appropriate  and 
measured.  An  overview  of  the  role  of  EU  funding  in  gender  equality  is  also 
included  in  the  'Evaluation  of  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  strategy  for 
is  available  on 
equality  between  women  and  men  2010-2015'  which 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-
equality/files/documents/151201_strategy_evaluation_en.pdf.  A  similar  study  will 
be produced after the end of the current "strategic engagement for gender equality 
2016-2019". 

224. 

(§ 604 - 2014/PAR/0461) The European Parliament invites the Union to increase the 
share  of  the  ESF  dedicated  to  develop  high  quality  public  services  at  affordable 
prices  for  childcare,  care  for  the  elderly  and  dependent  adults  (for  which  are  still 
women that in most cases take care for them) taking also into account the evidences 
provided  by  Gender  Equality  Index,  recently  developed  by  European  Institute  for 
Gender Equality (EIGE). 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  is  already  provided  for  by  article  4.2  of  Regulation  (EU) 
N°1304/2013  on  the  ESF.    Access  to  affordable,  high  quality  care  services, 
including  childcare  and  care  for  the  elderly  and  other  dependents  is  one  of  the 
Investment Priorities of the ESF for the programming period 2014-2020. 

Member  States  have  reserved  25,6  %  of  their  ESF  allocations  (ie.  21,1  billion 
euros)  for  social  inclusion  activities,  including  access  to  care  (which  amounts  to 
around 3.9 EUR billion). 

The 2016 Annual Implementation Reports will provide an overview as regards the 
state of play of the relevant Operational Programmes under which access to care is 
supported. Implementation of ESF programmes will intensify in 2016. 

225. 

(§  605  -  2014/PAR/0462)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  and 
Member  States  to  implement  full  training  of  public  officials  involved  in  spending 
decisions  to ensure  full understanding of the effects  their decisions  have on gender 
equality. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

Commission statutory staff involved in spending decisions must follow training in 
financial management. The likely gender-specific impact is already mainstreamed 
in  the  Learning  Offer  of  the  Commission  particularly  regarding  training  for 
managers.  In  addition,  the  Commission  regularly  offers  courses  on  gender 
mainstreaming  to  its  staff.  The  issue  is  also  scrutinised  carefully  during  the 
Commission's decision-making process. The Commission is considering how best 
to raise awareness on gender impact of spending decisions in general. 

226. 

(§ 606 - 2014/PAR/0463) The European Parliament calls on all the Union institutions 
to  assess  whether  there  is  genuine parity  as  regards  the  distribution  of  posts  within 
the  institutions  and  bodies  of  the  Union,  providing  gender-by-gender  statistics  on 
staff numbers and grades as part of the discharge procedure. 

Commission's response: 

In  2015,  the  Commission  has  committed  itself  to  raise  the  part  of  women  in 
management to 40%. 

An assessment of the progress made will be available in the second semester 2016. 

Part  I  –  Special  Report  No  18/2014  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled 
"EuropeAid’s evaluation and results-oriented monitoring systems" 

227. 

(§  13  (first  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0464)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid  should,  to  ensure  that  the  evaluations  that  are  carried  out  reflect  the 
priorities of the organisation: 

–  define  clear  selection  criteria  to  prioritise  programme  evaluations  and  document 
how  they  were  applied in  establishing  the evaluation  plans, taking  into account  the 
complementarity with ROM. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

A  draft  guidance  note  on  selection  criteria  has  already  been  issued  in  December 
2014;  this  has  been  confirmed  and  further  strengthened  by  the  introduction  of  a 
new  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Plan  (MEP)  as  an  annex  to  the  EAMR  as  of 
January 2016. 

The  MEP  will  also  reinforce  the  complementarity  with  ROM,  which  was  already 
ensured through the selection criteria for ROM reviews, as set out in the new ROM 
Handbook in force since March 2015 as part of the new ROM system. 

228. 

(§  13  (second  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0465)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid  should,  to  ensure  that  the  evaluations  that  are  carried  out  reflect  the 
priorities of the organisation: 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– significantly improve its system of monitoring and reporting on the implementation 
of evaluation plans, including by providing an analysis of the reasons for delays and 
a description of measures adopted to address them. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The first Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (MEP), received early 2016, have been 
analysed and feedback is given where appropriate. Day to day monitoring will also 
be  made  possible  through  the  Evaluation  IT  module  rolled  out  since  May  2016. 
The  next  submission  of  MEPs  (beginning  of  2017),  together  with  the  analysis  of 
KPI  19,  will  make  it  possible  to  have  an  annual  overview  of  evaluation 
implementation compared to the plan, and to take action where necessary. 

229. 

(§  13  (third  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0466)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid  should,  to  ensure  that  the  evaluations  that  are  carried  out  reflect  the 
priorities of the organisation: 

–  strengthen  the  overall  supervision  of  programme  evaluation  activities  by 
EuropeAid. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

The first Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (MEP), received early 2016, have been 
analysed and feedback is given where appropriate. Day to day monitoring will also 
be  made  possible  through  the  Evaluation  IT  module  rolled  out  since  May  2016. 
The  next  submission  of  MEPs  (beginning  of  2017),  together  with  the  analysis  of 
KPI  19,  will  make  it  possible  to  have  an  annual  overview  of  evaluation 
implementation compared to the plan, and to take action where necessary. 

230. 

(§  14  (first  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0467)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid should, to ensure the quality of programme evaluations and ROMs: 

–  insist  that  operational  units  and  delegations  apply  quality  control  requirements, 
including,  for  programme  evaluations, 
the  use  of  a  reference  group  and 
documentation of the quality controls that have been performed. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

Strengthened  guidance  combined  with  strengthened  monitoring  and  reporting  is 
being  implemented.  A  network  of  Evaluation  Correspondents  in  EU  Delegations 
and  Headquarters  is  in  place  to  exchange  good  practices.  The  IT  evaluation 
("EVAL")  module  deployed  in  May  2016  allows  for  improved  quality  control, 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
including use of a reference group and the documentation thereof for programme 
evaluations. The evaluation managers of the Evaluation Unit in DG DEVCO are 
part of the reference group for programme evaluations at HQ level when deemed 
necessary  (in  function  of  importance  and/or  scope  of  the  programme).  The 
establishment  of  a  system  to  support  task  managers  in  carrying  out  programme 
evaluations is in the making: a call for tender for an Evaluation Support Service 
Team  (Helpdesk)  was  launched  on  29/09/2015.  The  Helpdesk  will  be operational 
before the end of 2016. 

For ROM,  a quality control and assurance  system  has been put in place  and the 
new  IT  ROM  module  provides  the  additional  information  management  tool  to 
support the monitoring of quality. 

231. 

(§  14  (second  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0468)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid should, to ensure the quality of programme evaluations and ROMs: 

– check, on a regular basis, the application of these controls. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

For evaluations, the new IT evaluation ("EVAL") module put in production on 11 
May 2016, to be used for each project evaluation, follows a quality process which 
will be regularly checked. For ROM,  a quality control  and assurance system  has 
been put in place and the new IT ROM module provides the additional information 
management tool to support the monitoring of quality. This is further supported by 
the  regular  specific  quality  control  reporting  to  be  ensured  by  the  ROM 
contractors. 

232. 

(§  15  (first  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0469)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid should, to enhance the evaluation system’s capability to provide adequate 
information on results achieved: 

–  apply  more  rigorously  the  regulatory  provisions  requiring  the  use  of  SMART 
(specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-related) objectives and verifiable 
indicators. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The use of SMART objectives and verifiable indicators is a continuous process to 
be  ensured  and  promoted  at  various  levels:  it  is  already  a  reality  for  the 
programming documents 2014-2020. 

The Action Document template to be used for each individual action to be financed 
has  been  revised  to  better  integrate  the  results  focus  and  appropriate  related 
guidance  has  been  provided  to  the  Delegations  and  HQ  services;  the  practical 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
compliance  with  the  new  requirements  is  furthermore  supported  and  monitored 
through  an  systematic  internal  quality  support put  in  place  in  DG  DEVCO  since 
October 2015. 

233. 

(§  15  (second  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0470)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid should, to enhance the evaluation system’s capability to provide adequate 
information on results achieved: 

– modify the monitoring system so that it continues to provide data on programmes 
until at least 3 years after their completion. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will not be taking the requested action. The reason for this is that 
the cost benefit is not proven. The Commission recalls that the recommendation of 
the  Court  of  Auditors  on  this  point  is  exclusively  based  on  the  EIB's  monitoring 
system  related  to  a  completely  different  configuration  of  implementation, 
compared  to  the  projects  funded  by  Commission-managed  grants,  which  can 
therefore not be replicated with respect to the latter. 

234. 

(§  15  (third  indent)  -  2014/PAR/0471)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that 
EuropeAid should, to enhance the evaluation system’s capability to provide adequate 
information on results achieved: 

– increase significantly the proportion of ex post programme evaluations. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission did not agree "a priori" on an increase of the proportion of ex-
post  evaluations.  However,  an  improvement  of  the  rationale  of  project  and 
programme  evaluations  and  their  timing  (interim  and/or  final  and/or  ex-post)  is 
necessary.  The  planning  thereof  is  strengthened  both  through  the  requirements 
included in the new Action Document template applicable since January 2015 and 
the  new Monitoring  and Evaluation Plan (MEP)  which instructions were sent in 
December 2015. This represents a continuous process. 

The Commission also recalls the important strengthening of reporting on results of 
projects  it  has  initiated  with  the  introduction  of  the  results  framework  and  the 
annual results reporting introduced as from 2016, comprising both aggregated and 
non-aggregated  results  information.  The  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  setting 
up  a  new  information  management  system  that  should  further  strengthen  the 
Commission's capacity to monitor and report results. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part III – Special Report No 23/2014 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Errors 
in  rural  development  spending:  what  are  the  causes  and  how  are  they  being 
addressed?" 

235. 

(§  29  - 2014/PAR/0472)  The European Parliament  calls  for a real simplification of 
the CAP, together with clearer guidance for national authorities and farmers. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  completed  the  simplification  process  as  regards  certain 
aspects of the CAP controls and penalty rules (Regulation (EU) No. 809/2014 and 
640/2014) and rural development (Regulation (EU) No. 807/2014) 

Furthermore, the Commission has issued and updated guidance material on rural 
development  programming  and  implementation,  In  particular,  guidance  fiches 
have  been  published  for  every  measure,  guidance  documents  on  certain  general 
aspects  (programming,  selection  and  eligibility  criteria,  public  procurement, 
verifiability  and  controllability  of  measures,  rules  on  controls  and  penalties)  and 
several common guidance documents for all ESI Funds. 

236. 

(§  30  -  2014/PAR/0473)  The  European  Parliament  considers  that  the  cost  of 
management and controls (EUR 4 billion) for the whole CAP is substantial and that 
the  emphasis  should  be  put  on  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  controls  and  not 
increasing  their  number;  in  this  context  appeals  to  the  Commission  and  Member 
States to focus on the root causes of errors in rural development spending. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  position  that  no  more,  but  better  controls  are 
needed.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  has  been  working  closely  with  the 
Member  States  to  identify  and  correct  the  root  causes  of  errors  in  rural 
development. There have been 6 Seminars on Error Rates (last one on 16/03/2016) 
with  all  managing  authorities  and  paying  agencies  of  the  Member  States  and  5 
update  exercises  to  update  and  adapt  their  action  plans  to  reduce  the  error  rate. 
Moreover, the Member States carried out a thorough assessment of the verifiability 
and  controllability  of  every  single  measure  programmed  in  the  RDP,  before  its 
approval by the Commission. Therefore, Member States are now aware of the main 
risks  and  causes  of  errors  in  rural  development  spending,  taking  corrective  and 
preventive actions when needed. 

237. 

(§  31  -  2014/PAR/0474)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
closely  monitor  the implementation  of  the  rural  development  programmes  and  take 
account  in  its  conformity  audits  of  the  applicable  rules  including  those  adopted  at 
national level where relevant, in order to reduce the risk of repeating weaknesses and 
errors encountered during the 2007-2013 programming period. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  approval  of  the  2014-2020  Rural  Development  programmes  required  the 
submission  of  a  joint  assessment  carried  out  by  paying  agency  and  managing 
authority,  on  the  verifiability  and  controllability  of  the  measures  programmed, 
taking  into  account  weaknesses  found  under  similar  operations  during  the 
precedent programming period. The continuous monitoring of the Commission in 
the framework of annual review meetings or Monitoring Committees, allows for a 
systematic  reaction  whenever  serious  audit  findings  are  identified  in  conformity 
clearance procedures, audits by the European Court of Auditors or findings of the 
Certification Body. 

238. 

(§ 32 - 2014/PAR/0475) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to apply 
a  uniform  error-rate  calculation  methodology  that  could  be  fully  reflected  in  the 
methodologies of Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The  CAP  budget  is  governed  in  shared  management,  which  means  the 
responsibility of managing the budget lies with the Member States. Therefore, it is 
for  the  Member  States  to  carry  out  the  administrative  and  on-the-spot  checks  to 
ensure that support is disbursed in accordance with the applicable legislation. The 
results of these checks are reported to the Commission as error rates established at 
Member States' level. 

The  Commission  lays  down  rules  on  how  the  checks  should  be  executed,  so  that 
the  same  criteria  are  used  throughout  the  EU.  The  Commission  also  provides 
detailed  guidelines  on  the  audit  work  to  be  done  by  the  Certification  Bodies  for 
giving an opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. If 
the Commission considers that weaknesses in the management and control system 
lead  to  understatements  in  the  reported  error  rates  and/or  cannot  rely  on  the 
opinion  of  the  certification  Body,  it  applies  adjustments.  The  adjustments  are 
disclosed precisely each year in the DG AGRI Annual Activity Report. 

239. 

(§ 33 - 2014/PAR/0476) The European Parliament supports a more intensive use of 
simplified cost methods where relevant and in compliance with legislative rules, and 
requests  that  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  analyse  to  what  extent  the 
characteristics  of  a  more  focused  scope,  limited  eligibility  criteria  and  the  use  of 
simplified  cost  options  can  be  replicated  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  an 
increased number of support measures, without jeopardising the overall objectives of 
those measures. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is actively promoting the use of simplified cost options under the 
rural  development  programmes.  The  Commission  has  organised  to  date  3 
workshops in Brussels (one of  them on Leader) and 4 workshops in the Member 
States (Madrid, Rome, London and Riga). Guidance material has been developed 
and presented to Member States, some in coordination with other ESI Funds. The 

130 

 
 
 
 
European  Network  for  Rural  Development  (ENRD)  is  also  fully  engaged  in 
facilitating the exchange of good practices and developing tailor-made systems. 

240. 

(§ 34 - 2014/PAR/0477) The European Parliament requests that the Commission and 
Member States analyse how to improve the scheme for supporting investments in the 
processing of agricultural products and also analyse the agri-environment payments 
measure  so  that,  as  far  as  possible,  commitments  can  be  controlled  via  Member 
States’ administrative checks. 

Commission's response: 

As  regards  the  second  part  of  the  recommendation,  it  is  up  to  Member  States  to 
design  their  systems  of  checks  and  controls.  The  Commission  has  insisted  in  a 
letter  to  all  Member  States  the  need  to  check  as  much  as  possible  in  the 
administrative stage, which covers 100% of the payment claims. 

As regards the first part of the recommendation, the Commission notes that it can 
only  be  partially  accepted  as  it  cannot  prejudge  the  scope  and  the  result  of  such 
analysis  or  future  policy  choices  by  the  legislators  for  the  next  programming 
period. 

In 2017 the Commission will prepare a strategic report of the Fund, summarising 
the  annual  progress  reports  submitted  by  Member  States  (Article  53  Regulation 
1303/2013). Furthermore, the Commission and the Member States will assess the 
performance  of  the  RDPs  during  the  review  process  foreseen  under  Article  21 
Regulation  1303/2013.  In  the  light  of  these  and  other  evidences  (e.g.  audit 
findings), the Commission will assess the policy conception and the eventual need 
to make proposals for the following programming period. 

At  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  the  Commission  will  make  a  thorough 
analysis of the continued need for each support measure before making a proposal 
for the following programming period as has been done for the present period. 

241. 

(§  35  -  2014/PAR/0478)  The  European  Parliament  appeals  to  the  Commission  to 
perform  a  detailed  causal  analysis  of  negative  correlations  between  the  financial 
execution rate and the error rate. 

Commission's response: 

The Court concludes on a correlation between the financial execution rate and the 
error  rate,  but  does  not  provide  any  detailed  analysis  of  that  phenomenon  (as 
stated in paragraph 21). In the last three years the Commission and the Members 
States  have  done  a  considerable  work  on  identifying  the  causes  of  errors  and 
setting  specific  and  detailed  action  plans  to  remedy  the  deficiencies  observed. 
These  efforts  focus  on  actions  to  be  taken,  their  implementation  and  monitoring 
the  Commission  of  preventive 
and,  where  necessary, 
(interruption, reduction or suspension of payments to Member States) or corrective 
(net  financial  corrections)  actions.  Commission  resources  will  continue  to  be 
forward looking and used for improving further the sound financial management 
of the CAP. 

the  application  by 

131 

 
 
 
 
Part  IV –  Special  Report  No 24/2014  of  the  Court of  Auditors entitled "Is  EU 
support  for  preventing  and  restoring  damage  to  forests  caused  by  fire  and 
natural disasters well managed?" 

242. 

(§  36  -  2014/PAR/0479)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
establish  common  criteria  to  identify  the  scale  of  fire  risk  in  European  forests,  in 
order  to  end  the  arbitrary  and  inconsistent  definition  of  high  fire  risk  areas  and 
therewith the deficient evaluation and selection process by Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  consulting  with  the  Expert  Group  on  forest 
fires to set up common criteria. As forest types, fire vulnerability, geographical and 
climatic  conditions  and  fire  danger  levels  are  very  diverse  throughout  the  EU,  a 
joint  exercise  with  different  Commission  services  and  the  Member  States  will  be 
time-consuming, but results can be expected in 2018. 

243. 

(§  40  -  2014/PAR/0480)  The  European  Parliament  deplores  especially  the  Court´s 
finding  of  continued  severe  deficiencies  in  the  period  2014-2020  due  to  the 
consistently  poor  monitoring  framework;  urges  the  Commission  to  take  immediate 
action to improve its monitoring and control system. 

Commission's response: 

The 2014-2020 Common Monitoring and Evaluation System (CMES) will monitor 
the  implementation  of  the  measures,  whereas  the  evaluation  will  consider  its 
performance  in  the  context  of  the  relevant  RD  objectives.  A  more  thorough 
assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  all  measures  against  the  objectives  will  be 
performed  at  the  time  of  the  ex-post  evaluation.  However,  a  balance  needs  to  be 
found  between  what  can  be  done  through  monitoring  and  evaluation  taking  into 
account the risk of excessive administrative burden and the financial constraints. 

244. 

(§  41  -  2014/PAR/0481)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
support  the  delivery  of  harmonised  data  on  the  multifunctional  role  of  forests  and 
forest resources, by encouraging the establishment of an European forest information 
system based on national data and its integration into an European data platform. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  support  initiatives,  especially  sponsored  by  DG  ENV  and 
JRC,  to  improve  the  analysis  of  existing  data  and  availability  of  new  sources  of 
information on this topic. 

245. 

(§  42  -  2014/PAR/0482)  The  European  Parliament  insists  in  addition  that  Member 
States establish a sound control system that includes retention of relevant documents 
and information; calls in this regard on the Commission to ensure that support is only 
granted  where  Member  States  have  established  such  an  appropriate  and  reviewable 
control system. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission carries out conformity audits in the Member States to verify that 
the  expenditure  paid  is  in  compliance  with  the  rules.  If  during  the  audit 
weaknesses are found, financial corrections are applied. 

The measures and the paying agencies to be audited are determined on the basis of 
a risk analysis. The financial importance plays a major role in the quantification 
of  the  exposure  to  risk.  That  means  that  an  audit  area  with  high  expenditure  is 
more likely to be highly ranked and audited. Measure 226 was audited in 2014 and 
2015. 

The Court's relevant recommendation has been implemented through assessment 
of rural development programmes submitted for 2014-2020 period and compliance 
audits will be conducted during the implementation period by 2020. 

Part  V  –  Special  Report  No  1/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "Inland 
Waterway  Transport  in  Europe:  No  significant  improvements  in  modal  share 
and navigability conditions since 2001" 

246. 

(§ 46 - 2014/PAR/0483) The European Parliament concludes that development of the 
inland waterways  mode  of transport lags behind the pace of road and rail  transport 
despite  a  decade  of  investment;  urges  a  significant  increase  in  the  efforts  of  the 
Commission and the Member States. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  partially  accepts  the  recommendation,  as  it  notes  that  the 
recommendation  is  also  addressed  to  the  Member  States.  Inland  waterway 
transport has been one of the fastest growing modes of land transport over the last 
decade. The Commission has stepped up its efforts with the implementation of the 
NAIADES  programme.  The  Commission  acknowledges  that  also  the  Member 
States  need  to  step  up  their  efforts  and  investment  to  support  the  further 
development of this mode of transport. 

247. 

(§  55  -  2014/PAR/0484)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  both  the 
Commission and the Member States pay common commitments the utmost attention 
because the Union's transport sector operates in a complex environment of economic, 
political and legal variables where the establishment of multimodal networks meets 
obstacles and constraints related to diverging priorities and inconsistent engagement. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  accepts  the  recommendation  insofar  it  is  concerned  by  it,  but 
notes  that  it  is  partly  addressed  to  the  Member  States.  The  establishment  of 
multimodal  networks  is  underpinned  by  the  TEN-T  Regulation  which  is  being 
implemented  with  the  support  of  the  CEF,  ESIF  and  EFSI  programmes  and 
instruments.  The  TEN-T  Regulation  sets  target  dates  by  2030  and  2050 
respectively  for  the  completion  of  the  core  and  comprehensive  TEN-T  network. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  is  fully  implementing  the  supporting  instruments  and  supports 
the  call  of  the  European  Parliament  to  the  Member  States  to  live  up  to  the 
commitment  of  the  full implementation  of  the TEN-T.  The  Commission  will  take 
stock of progress with the implementation of these commitments in 2017. 

248. 

(§ 63 - 2014/PAR/0485) The European Parliament recommends that the Commission 
identify and analyse all horizontal issues, focusing extensively on strategic planning, 
cooperation  with  and  between  the  Member  States  and  project  selection  and 
implementation,  in  order  to  allow  the  conclusions  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
the current programming period. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  take  the  requested  action  and  will  work  through  the 
elaboration  of  the  Corridor  working  plans  on  a  strategic  planning  for  the 
implementation  of  the  TEN-T  programme.  These  working  plans  have  been 
approved  in 2015. Updates are foreseen for 2016 and 2017. They support project 
selection and implementation. 

249. 

(§ 65 - 2014/PAR/0486) The European Parliament recommends that the Commission 
focus  its  funding  on  those  projects  that  are  most  relevant  for  inland  waterway 
transport and offer comprehensive plans to eliminate bottlenecks. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission partially accepts the recommendation, as its focus is bound by the 
existing legal framework. The TEN-T corridor work plans offer a comprehensive 
approach to  planning the  elimination of  bottlenecks over a time span until 2030. 
These work plans will be gradually be refined and will offer input and support for 
the  mid-term  review  of  the  CEF  programme.  The  focus  will  be  on  those  projects 
which  are  consistent  with  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  core  network, 
including inland waterway transport projects. 

250. 

(§ 66 - 2014/PAR/0487) The European Parliament recommends that the Commission 
prioritise  funding  of  projects  and  initiatives  in  Member  States  aiming  to  improve 
waterway  transport  through  innovative  solutions  such  as  high-tech  navigation, 
alternative fuels and efficient vessels. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  take  the  requested  action  and  will  continue  to  support 
innovative  solutions  to  support  the  development  of  inland  waterway  transport 
through its CEF and HORIZON2020 programmes. 

251. 

(§ 67 - 2014/PAR/0488) The European Parliament recommends that the Commission 
improve awareness among the Member States and their regions on available funding 
instruments for supporting inland waterway transport in view of eliminating existing 
bottlenecks along the key corridors. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The Commission will take the requested action and is funding the operation of a 
database  which  provides  information  on  funding  opportunities  for  inland 
waterway  transport  at  EU,  national  and  regional  level.  The  Commission  also 
finances  the  establishment  of  a  European  Inland  Barging  Innovation  Platform 
which  provides  also  promotes  the  update  of  funding  instruments  to  support 
innovation in inland navigation. 

252. 

(§  70  -  2014/PAR/0489)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
update  its  strategic  goals  and  recommendations  for  the  Inland  waterway  and  to 
propose a Union inland waterways strategy and action plan for 2020 onwards. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will in 2017 take stock of the progress with the implementation of 
the  NAIADES  programme  with  a  view  to  propose  a  Union  inland  waterways 
strategy and action plan for 2020 onwards. 

253. 

(§  71  -  2014/PAR/0490)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the  ex  ante 
evaluation  of  operations  by  the  Commission  concerning  the  inland  water  transport 
assess  outcomes  in  the  context  of  the  overall  objectives  set  since  2001  and  the 
realisation of the Core Network. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission will in 2017 take stock of the progress with the implementation of 
the  NAIADES  programme  with  a  view  to  propose  a  Union  inland  waterways 
strategy  and  action  plan  for  2020  onwards  and  proceed  with  the  mid-term 
evaluation of the CEF programme. These actions will assess progress against the 
objectives in force at the time of the adoption of the respective instruments. 

Part  VI  –  Special  Report  No  2/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "EU-
funding of Urban Waste Water Treatment plants in Danube river basin: further 
efforts  needed  in  helping  Member  States  to  achieve  EU  waste  water  policy 
objectives" 

254. 

(§ 76 - 2014/PAR/0491) The European Parliament asks the Commission to provide 
technical,  legal  and  administrative  help  to  beneficiaries  in  order  to  ensure  the 
completion of the ongoing projects in due time. 

Commission's response: 

Technical  Assistance  can  be  used  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for 
beneficiaries.  The  JASPERS  (Joint  Assistance  to  Support  Projects  in  European 
Regions) facility offers assistance, including legal advice, for EU-funded projects. 
During  the  implementation  of  programmes,  the  objective  of  reducing  the 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries 
Committees. 

is  monitored  by 

the  Monitoring 

Part  VII  –  Special  Report  No  3/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "EU 
Youth Guarantee: first steps taken but implementation risks ahead" 

255. 

(§  87  -  2014/PAR/0492)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  make 
sure that further funds can be found to support the Youth Guarantee over the seven-
year period. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

Addressing  youth  unemployment  through  the  Youth  Guarantee  remains  a  key 
priority  of  the  EU.  The  legislation  envisages  that  a  potential  increase  of  the 
resources of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) will be based on 2016 annual 
youth unemployment data. This year, the Commission will assess the first results of 
the scheme and the needs on the ground as evidenced by the Member States' YEI 
evaluations before considering a proposal for a decision by the EU co-legislators. 
Member States are currently using YEI resources available for spending until end-
2018. The Commission will report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee 
to the European Parliament and the Council by the end of 2016. 

However, although significant EU financial support is available to make the Youth 
Guarantee  a  reality,  Member  States  must  prioritise  youth  employment  measures 
also  in  their  national  budgets.  Moreover,  in  a  number  of  Member  States  the 
financial  resources  of  the  ESF  and  the  YEI  are  not  as  substantial  as  in  other 
Member States and more generally, in some cases EU resources are likely not to be 
sufficient  to  complete  the  ambitious  reforms  required  to  implement  the  Youth 
Guarantee. Therefore, the investment of  national  resources for the  establishment 
of fully-fledged Youth Guarantee schemes is crucial. 

At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  recalled  that  not  all  measures  that  the  Youth 
Guarantee  Council  Recommendation  calls  for  are  expensive  in  terms  of  public 
expenditure  (e.g.  improving  coordination  and  exchange  of  information  across 
different  levels  of  government,  employment,  education  and  training  services,  and 
between these services and employers do not necessarily require large budgets, but 
significantly contribute towards the success of the Youth Guarantee). 

256. 

(§ 89 - 2014/PAR/0493) The European Parliament finds the financing of the Youth 
Guarantee scheme very complex given the various funding options available through 
the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  and  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI);  asks 
the  Commission  to  provide  guidance  to  Member  States'  authorities  taking  into  due 
consideration  that  local,  regional  and  national  authorities  face  different  challenges 
when implementing the scheme and therefore require specific guidelines. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  actively  supporting  the  programming  process  through 
guidance  documents,  regular  meetings  with  Member  States  and  technical 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
seminars. It has provided to Member States specific documents both in the context 
of 
the  ESF  as  well  as  a  guidance  note  on  YEI  programming: 
http://ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=457&langId=en. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  regularly  meets  the  Managing  Authorities  (the  same 
for ESF and YEI programmes) at every ESF Technical Working Group Meeting 
since 2014. 

Finally, it should be recalled that EU funds support to the YG goes beyond direct 
YEI  and  ESF  measures  for  young  persons’  training  and  employment  measures. 
The  ESF  also  supports  labour  market  services  modernisation,  self-employment, 
education  and  social  inclusion  measures  —  which  partly  also  support  youth 
employment  from  a  structural  reform  point  of  view.  Beyond  EU  funds,  national 
budgets also support YG implementation – in many MS also substantially. 

257. 

(§ 93 - 2014/PAR/0494) The European Parliament asks the Commission to develop a 
comprehensive  monitoring  system  including  a  set  of  standards  to  assess  the 
implementation  of  the  Youth  Guarantee  measures  and  to  evaluate  their  success  in 
Member States; invites also the Commission to consider the inclusion of compulsory 
targets  for  fighting  youth  unemployment  within  the  framework  of  the  European 
semester. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission partially accepts the recommendation. 

Thorough  and  regular  monitoring  is  of  utmost  importance  for  the  successful 
implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes. 

The  Commission  has  developed  a  comprehensive  monitoring  system  through 
various channels: 

- The Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee, developed by the 
Employment Committee, as endorsed by the EPSCO Council. 

- The relevant arrangements that are set out in article 19 and Annex I and II of the 
ESF Regulation. 

- The relevant CPR provisions related to monitoring and evaluation in the case of 
measures financed from the YEI. 

- The commitment to report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee to the 
European Parliament and the Council in 2016. The Commission’s 2016 report on 
the  implementation  of  the  Youth  Guarantee,  will  be  formally  submitted  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council through the appropriate channels. 

Furthermore, monitoring activities are feeding into the Commission’s assessment 
of  the  Youth  Guarantee  implementation  under  the  European  Semester  process. 
The  Employment  Committee  –  in  its  preparation  of  Council  deliberations  – 
pursues as well multilateral surveillance on the implementation of YG schemes in 
Member States. 

The  Indicator  Framework  foresees  yearly  data  collection  by  Member  States.  It  is 
based  on  macroeconomic,  implementation  and  follow-up  indicators  which,  taken 

137 

 
 
 
together, are providing a holistic view of Youth Guarantee schemes’ impact on the 
labour market situation of young people across Europe. The data collected give an 
indication  of  the  efficiency  and  coverage  of  the  YG  schemes  in  Member  States, 
including in terms of sustainable labour market outcomes for young people after 
the provision of a Youth Guarantee offer. 

Regarding  the  inclusion  of  compulsory  targets  for  fighting  youth  unemployment, 
the  Commission  notes  that  within  the  framework  of  the  European  Semester, 
analysis  is  based  on  a  number  of  key  indicators  to  analyse  the  performance  of 
Member  States.  The  Europe  2020  Strategy  provides  the  most  relevant  indicators, 
including  an  employment  rate  target  to  be  achieved.  Together  with  the  Annual 
Growth  Survey,  the  overall  policy  guidance  to  Member  States,  the  Commission 
publishes  a  Draft  Joint  Employment  Report  in  which  a  Scoreboard  of  key 
employment and social indicators is used: The Youth unemployment rate and the 
NEET rate are among the six key indicators to identify a country’s key challenges. 

Moreover,  the  latest  edition  of  the  Macroeconomic  Imbalances  Scoreboard 
contains three new employment indicators - namely the activity rate, long-term and 
youth  unemployment.  The  inclusion  of  new  employment  variables  in  the 
scoreboard  is  a  concrete  deliverable  on  the  Commission’s  commitment  to 
strengthen  its  analysis  of  macroeconomic  imbalances.  However,  these  indicators 
are not used as compulsory targets. The economic governance process is based on 
country  specific  analysis  and  recommendations.  The  Commission  proposes 
country-specific  recommendations  regarding  each  Member  State  based  on  its 
assessment of the national programmes and of the economic and social situation 
of  the  country,  also  incorporating  the  outcome  of  the  Commission's  (spring) 
forecast.  The  recommendations  identify  a  limited  number  of  main  issues  of 
macroeconomic and social relevance in the national economy that Member States 
should address as a priority in the coming 12 to 18 months. 

258. 

(§ 100 - 2014/PAR/0495) The European Parliament asks the Commission to deploy a 
comprehensive  monitoring  scheme  which  includes  the  Indicator  Framework  for 
Monitoring the Youth Guarantee  in combination with  the planned result indicators, 
focusing on outcomes and assessing the employment status of individuals benefiting 
from the youth employment measures. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission accepts the recommendation. 

Thorough  and  regular  monitoring  is  of  utmost  importance  for  the  successful 
implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes. 

The  Commission  has  developed  a  comprehensive  monitoring  system  through 
various channels: 

- The Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee, developed by the 
Employment Committee, as endorsed by the EPSCO Council. 

- The relevant arrangements that are set out in article 19 and Annex I and II of the 
ESF Regulation. 

138 

 
 
 
- The relevant CPR provisions related to monitoring and evaluation in the case of 
measures financed from the YEI. 

-  The commitment to report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee to the 
European Parliament and the Council in 2016. The Commission’s 2016 report on 
the  implementation  of  the  Youth  Guarantee,  will  be  formally  submitted  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council through the appropriate channels. 

Furthermore, monitoring activities are feeding into the Commission’s assessment 
of  the  Youth  Guarantee  implementation  under  the  European  Semester  process. 
The  Employment  Committee  –  in  its  preparation  of  Council  deliberations  – 
pursues as well multilateral surveillance on the implementation of YG schemes in 
Member States. 

The  Indicator  Framework  foresees  yearly  data  collection  by  Member  States.  It  is 
based  on  macroeconomic,  implementation  and  follow-up  indicators  which,  taken 
together, are providing a holistic view of Youth Guarantee schemes’ impact on the 
labour market situation of young people across Europe. The data collected give an 
indication  of  the  efficiency  and  coverage  of  the  YG  schemes  in  Member  States, 
including in terms of sustainable labour market outcomes for young people after 
the provision of a Youth Guarantee offer. 

Part  VIII  –  Special  Report  No  4/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled 
"Technical  assistance:  what  contribution  has  it  made  to  agriculture  and  rural 
development?" 

259. 

(§ 103 - 2014/PAR/0496) The European Parliament asks the Commission to clarify 
the  scope  and  application  of  technical  assistance  to  Member  States  in  the  area  of 
rural development. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  issued  guidance  on  the  implementation  of  technical 
assistance expenditure under RDPs 2014-2020, aligned with the other ESI Funds. 
Moreover, the Commission has screened and provided comments on the content of 
technical  assistance  description  in  each  of  the  programmes,  taking  into  account 
recommendations and observations of the Court of Auditors. 

260. 

(§ 104 - 2014/PAR/0497) The European Parliament asks the Commission to monitor 
closely Member States' implementation of technical assistance. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  follows  closely  the  implementation  of  technical  assistance 
through  the  annual  review  meetings,  the  monitoring  committees,  quarterly 
declarations  of  expenditure  and  controls  statistics  submitted  by  Member  States, 
audit  reports  from  the  Commission  and  the  Court  of  Auditors  and  reports  of  the 
Certification Body. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
261. 

(§  105  -  2014/PAR/0498)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  take 
appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that  general  administrative  expenditure  such  as 
regular IT maintenance is not charged to technical assistance budget lines. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  included  in  observation  letters  submitted  to  Member  States 
before  programme  approval  the  need  to  ensure  proper  attribution  of  technical 
assistance  expenditure  to  the  types  of  costs  described  in  the  legal  provisions.  In 
particular, expenditure paid and declared should be exclusively linked to the rural 
development  programme  and  Member  States  should  ensure  adequate  verifiability 
and controllability. 

262. 

(§ 106 - 2014/PAR/0499) The European Parliament asks the Commission to require, 
in  future,  Member  States  to  report  administrative/‘budget  support’  costs  for  rural 
development  separately  so  as  to  make  it  more  transparent  that  part  of  technical-
assistance funding is spent on such support. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  amended  the  guidelines  for  reporting  in  the  Annual 
Implementation  Report  by  the  Member  States,  requesting  specific  information  of 
purely administrative expenditure paid out of the technical assistance budget of the 
programmes. 

263. 

(§ 107 - 2014/PAR/0500) The European Parliament asks the Commission to establish 
with  Member  States  a  suitable  performance  framework  for  technical-assistance 
funding. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  included  in  observation  letters  submitted  to  Member  States 
before  programme  approval  the  need  to  have  a  more  performant-oriented 
budgeting  as  regards  technical  assistance.  In  particular,  it  was  requested  to 
Member  States  the  inclusion  of  SMART  objectives,  which  are  measureable  and 
focused on results. The inclusion of such additional types of indicators lays under 
the responsibility of Member States. 

Part  IX  –  Special  Report  No  5/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "Are 
financial instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development 
area?" 

264. 

(§  108  -  2014/PAR/0501)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
identify  the  challenges,  specific  characteristics  and  obstacles  faced  in  rural 
development  in  order  to  encourage  Member  States  to  better  set  up  and  assess  the 
budgetary  demand  for  financial  instruments  and  to  avoid  over-capitalisation,  which 
commits  funds  without  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Union  policies; 
requests  also  that  access  for  final  beneficiaries  be  facilitated  to  allow  for  a  more 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
active  implementation  of  financial  instruments  at  regional  level,  in  particular  in 
comparison to grants. 

Commission's response: 

Under  the  regulatory framework for 2014-2020 MSs  are  invited to  examine their 
programme area and identify market failures or suboptimal investment situations, 
and the CPR provides for the possibility to introduce financial instruments if found 
adequate  to  address  the  identified  constraints  (Article  37  of  Reg  1303/2013/EU). 
The Commission launched fi-compass (https://www.fi-compass.eu/) in cooperation 
with  EIB  in  order  to  facilitate  the  capacity  building  and  awareness  raising  Fi-
compass, which additionally offers good venue for the Commission for collecting 
experiences from MSs and other stakeholders. Using these opportunities DG AGRI 
is  continuously  monitoring  the  needs,  challenges,  specific  characteristics  and 
obstacles  faced  in  rural  development  and  feeds  these  inputs  into  its  policy 
development. 

265. 

(§ 109 - 2014/PAR/0502) The European Parliament request that the Commission and 
Member  States  implement  monitoring  systems  that  allow  evaluation  of  the 
effectiveness of the financial instruments. 

Commission's response: 

Article 40 and 46 of Reg 1303/2013/EU provides for arrangements on monitoring 
and  control  of 
in  Commission 
Implementing  Regulation  821/2014/EU  and  Commission  Delegated  Regulation 
480/2014/EU. 

further  detailed 

instruments, 

financial 

266. 

(§  110  -  2014/PAR/0503)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
provide  guidance  and  actively  promote  a  higher  quality  of  mandatory  ex  ante 
assessments for financial instruments, as introduced for the 2014-2020 programming 
period, so as to identify specific weaknesses and to avoid over-capitalisation. 

Commission's response: 

Under  the  regulatory  framework  for  2014-2020  MSs  considering  establishing 
financial  instruments  are  required  to  carry  out  a  thorough  ex-ante  assessment 
providing evidence of market failures or suboptimal investment situations, and the 
estimated level and scope of public investment needs, including types of financial 
instruments  to  be  supported  (Article  37  of  Reg  1303/2013/EU).  The  Commission 
provides assistance to MSs in various forms in order to help them carry out quality 
ex-ante assessments. The EIB and the Commission (involving PWC) published ex-
ante  methodologies  for  financial  instruments  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period, available on fi-compass webpage (https://www.fi-compass.eu/) launched by 
the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  EIB.  Fi-compass  already  organized 
numerous  conferences  and  workshops,  seminars  for  MSs  and  other  interested 
stakeholders  to  share  experience  and  help  identifying  the  potentials  of  financial 
instruments.  Free  of  charge  targeted  coaching  has  been  also  made  available  for 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
Managing  Authorities  under  fi-compass.  Further  assistance  is  provided  in  the 
form of guidance notes, direct consultations. 

267. 

(§  111  -  2014/PAR/0504)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and  the  Member  States  perform  a  thorough  assessment  prior  to  the  future  use  and 
development of financial instruments in the area of rural development on the basis of 
their  contribution  to  the  implementation  of  Union  policies  and  effectiveness  for 
beneficiaries. 

Commission's response: 

Under  the  regulatory  framework  for  2014-2020  MSs  considering  establishing 
financial  instruments  are  required  to  carry  out  a  thorough  ex-ante  assessment 
providing evidence of market failures or suboptimal investment situations, and the 
estimated level and scope of public investment needs, including types of financial 
instruments to be supported (Article 37 of Reg 1303/2013/EU). 

268. 

(§  112  -  2014/PAR/0505)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and  the  Member  States  decide  on  clear  transitional  rules  between  programming 
periods to promote the long-term effects and sustainability of financial instruments. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  adopted  its  transitional  rules  under  the  COMMISSION 
DECISION  of  5.3.2015 on the  approval of  guidelines on the closure of  the rural 
development  programmes adopted for assistance from  the European  Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the period 2007-2013. FEI from 2007-
2013 can be operational till the end of 2015, after which date new FEI has to be 
established  due  to  the  entrance  in  force  of  the  new,  more  comprehensive  and 
different legal basis for the period 2014-2020. 

269. 

(§  116  -  2014/PAR/0506)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
provide clearly defined operational implementing rules, including the exit policy, in 
due time and before the closure of the 2007-2013 programming period. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission has established its guidance for closure in close co-operation and 
discussions with Member States under the COMMISSION DECISION of 5.3.2015 
on the approval of guidelines on the closure of the rural development programmes 
the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
adopted  for  assistance  from 
Development  (EAFRD)  for  the  period  2007-2013.  Rules  on  so-called  financial 
engineering  actions  are  detailed  under  point  3.6.  Specific  eligibility  rules 
applicable to financial engineering actions. The exit policy of  FEI, however, is a 
matter defined in the funding agreements signed between the Member States and 
the Fund manager as required by the EU legislation. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
270. 

Part  X  –  Special  Report  No  6/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "The 
integrity and implementation of the EU ETS" 

(§  119  -  2014/PAR/0507)  The  European  Parliament  welcomes  the  fact  that 
significant  improvements  to  the  framework  for  protecting  the  integrity  of  the  ETS 
have  been  implemented,  including  most  of  the  spot  market  for  allowances  in  the 
Financial  Instruments  Directive  (Directive  2004/39/EC  and  Directive  2000/12/EC) 
and market abuse directive (Directive 2014/57/EU) and regulation (Regulation (EU) 
No 596/2014); calls on the Commission to consider complementary measures in line 
with the Court's recommendations, including measures covering compliance traders. 

Commission's response: 

A well-balanced regime for emission market regulation and oversight is currently 
being  put  in  place  with  the  implementation  of  the  MiFID2  (revised  Markets  in 
limited 
Financial  Instruments  Directive)  package.  MiFID2  contains  very 
exemptions  for  compliance  traders  in  the  emissions  market.  The  potential  risks 
have  been  thoroughly  analysed  during  the  adoption  process.  It  is  foreseen  that 
these exemptions for compliance traders and smaller participants will be reviewed 
as part of the mid term review of the legislation. 

271. 

(§  120  -  2014/PAR/0508)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  to  ensure  transparency  and  effective  Union  level  oversight  of  the 
emissions  market  and  procedures  for  cooperation  involving  national  regulators  and 
the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

to  be  present  as 

The  implementation  of  the  adopted  EU  financial  markets  legislation  will  ensure 
tranparency  and  adequate  EU-level  supervision.  The  Commission  services 
continue 
the  ESMA  board/standing 
relevant 
committees/working  groups  and  to  be  in  contact  with  ACER.  The  need  for  any 
complementary  options  for  promoting  initiatives  to  strengthen  further  the 
regulatory cooperation involving other regulators and supervising authorities will 
be considered. 

in 

272. 

(§  125  -  2014/PAR/0509)  The  European  Parliament  requests  an  assessment  by  the 
Commission  of  industrial  sectors  and  companies  vulnerable  to  carbon  leakage  to 
clearly identify areas where  loss of business for the European industry to  countries 
without strict climate legislation have occurred. 

Commission's response: 

In the  phase  3 of  the  EU  ETS (2013-2020)  a carbon leakage regime, based  on a 
carbon price of €30, is in place. It is not expected that the price will reach this level 
over the remaining years of this phase. However, the Commission is continuously 
monitoring the potential impact of EU ETS on industrial sectors. For example, a 
recent  study  commissioned  by  DG  Climate  Action  collected  factual  evidence  on 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
potential  occurrence  of  carbon  leakage  in  key  energy-intensive  industries.  The 
study clearly concluded there has been no evidence of carbon leakage during the 
phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS (2005-2012). 

The  Commission's  proposal  for  the  revision  of  the  EU  ETS  for  phase  4  (2021-
2030) adopted in July 2015 again continues to address the risk of carbon leakage 
by  continuation  of  free  allocation,  aiming  to  ensure  that  European  industries 
remain  competitive  on  international  markets.  The  proposal  is  accompanied  by  a 
thorough  impact  assessment  which,  inter  alia,  considered  the  impact  of  different 
policy options on largest EU ETS industrial sectors. 

Part XI – Special Report No 7/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The EU 
police mission in Afghanistan: mixed results" 

273. 

(§  126  -  2014/PAR/0510)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and the European External Action Service (EEAS) apply the lessons learnt not only 
from the EUPOL mission in Afghanistan but also from other Common Security and 
Defence Policy (CSDP) missions with the aim of facilitating knowledge transfer and 
synergy effects among different missions. 

Commission's response: 

Within  the  EEAS  there  is  a  Lessons  Learnt  and  Best  Practices  cycle  both  on 
strategic as on operational levels. In November 2015, updated Revised Guidelines 
on  the  Lessons  Learnt  Process  for  civilian  CSDP  missions  were  adopted  by  the 
Civilian Operations Commander and shared with the CSDP Missions, with the aim 
to further reinforce the follow up to lessons identified. 

Furthermore,  the  EEAS  is  developing  a  set  of  horizontal  thematic  operational 
guidances  (on  policing,  Rule  of  Law  matters  for  instance)  with  the  aim  at 
improving the planning and conduct of civilian CSDP missions. 

274. 

(§  128  -  2014/PAR/0511)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and the EEAS create synergies and cross-references among project activities as well 
as a strong and efficient linkage between the mission objectives and the milestones 
laid down in the Mission Implementation Plan (MIP). 

Commission's response: 

Civilian  CSDP  missions  have  increased  the  coherence  of  their  activities  when 
pursuing the objectives set by EU Member States under their respective mandates. 
Missions have improved the planning and monitoring of their activities, as part of 
their  Mission  Implementation  Plan  (MIP).  Regular  missions'  internal  processes 
have  been  put  in  place  and  are  used  for  this  purpose.  Missions'  MIPs  are  fully 
structured along the Mission's mandate objectives. 

The EU's contributions to the UNDP administered Law and Order Trust Fund for 
Afghanistan (LOTFA) complement the CSDP Mission EUPOL in a comprehensive 
approach and contribute to the orderly phasing out of this Mission by addressing 
the  same  priority  areas  with  different  means  and  building  upon  achievements  by 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
EUPOL.  EUPOL  is  participating  in  and  contributing  to  LOTFA  donor  working 
groups  with  technical  expertise  ensuring  consistency  and  synergies  with  EUPOL 
activities.  The  EU's  contributions  to  LOTFA  are  mutually  reinforcing  with  EU 
Member States' activities and priorities also in the wider political-military context 
and coordinated through the LOTFA governance structures as well as wider and 
well  established  coordination  structures  such  as  the  Oversight  and  Coordination 
Body (OCB). 

275. 

(§  130  -  2014/PAR/0512)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and  the  EEAS  coordinate  CSDP  missions  more  thoroughly  in  advance  with  other 
Union bilateral missions and international efforts with similar objectives. 

Commission's response: 

The  EU  is  an  advocate  for  the  comprehensive  approach.  The  first  step  in  the 
current Crisis Management Procedures (2013) for an EU external engagement is 
to develop an overall EU approach - the Political Framework for Crisis Approach 
(PFCA).    In  this  framework  all  EU  instruments  (including  security/CSDP)  have 
been  considered,  as  well  as  efforts  of  other  international  actors  (e.g.  UN)  and 
bilateral efforts by individual EU Member States.  The PFCA could be the starting 
point of a CSDP mission, but it could also focus on diplomatic or economic efforts. 

276. 

(§  131  -  2014/PAR/0513)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and the EEAS pay particular attention to procurement procedures to ensure that they 
are responsive to the CSDP's operational needs. 

Commission's response: 

CSDP  missions  implement  the  EU  budget  indirectly.  To  ensure  the  soundness  of 
that  implementation,  CSDP  missions  apply  the  EU  Financial  and  procurement 
rules  to  their  own  procurement  procedures.  The  Commission  has  traditionally 
interpreted the procurement rules with the highest degree of flexibility possible and 
consider  that  these  rules  are  sufficiently  flexible.  Besides  the  existing  framework 
contracts already in place to alleviate the procedures for the missions and get best 
value  for  money,  additional  ones  will  be  set-up  in  particular  through  the  new 
mission  support  platform.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  drafted  guidelines  to 
the  Missions  identifying  all  flexible  procedures  applicable  to  them.  Finally,  the 
Commission provides support to the mission's procurement officers. 

277. 

(§  132  -  2014/PAR/0514)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and  the  EEAS  further  increase  the  effectiveness  of  their  CSDP  missions  by 
improving the long-term sustainability of the outcomes achieved. 

Commission's response: 

Civilian CSDP Missions have improved the way they provide their support to local 
authorities  by  focusing  it  on  those  areas  enabling  sustainable  outcomes  (for 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
instance  on  structural  reforms,  training  capacity,  operational  procedures). 
Coordination is also strengthened with Commission services at HQs or local level. 

278. 

(§  133  -  2014/PAR/0515)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and the EEAS observe the Union's achievements after the phasing out of EUPOL by 
the end of 2016, including the possibility of a further commitment beyond 2016. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission,  mainly  via  the  EU  Delegation,  and  the  wider  international 
community work together with their Afghan counterparts on the shared objective 
to progress towards a sustainable and effective civilian police force under Afghan 
ownership. The EU will continue its decade-long engagement in support of rule of 
law  and  civilian  policing  as  one  of  its  four  focal  sectors  within  the  DCI 
Multiannual Indicative Programme (MIP 2014-20, total €1.4bn). Yet the collective 
efforts  to  support  progress  on  police  professionalization  and  the  rule  of  law, 
especially  on  human  rights  and  the  rights  of  women  are  fragile  and  reversible 
given the context of fragility and the Afghan priority to face the rising insurgency. 
The  EU  will  continue  to  champion  a  civilian  policing  approach,  fiscal 
sustainability of the security sector and the rule of law through its instruments and 
in dialogue with the  Afghan government and other partners, including NATO as 
the dominant international actor in the security sector. 

In the context of the National Unity Government's ambitious state-building agenda 
and a gradually reinforced Afghan ownership and leadership, MoI reforms can be 
more  firmly  tied  into  the  whole-of-government  reform  agenda  which  has  shown 
encouraging  results  in  other  sectors.  The  UNDP  administered  Law  and  Order 
Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA) is expected to remain the main channel for 
EU  contributions  under  the  DCI  as  the  main  multilateral  channel  for  civilian 
assistance  to  MoI  reform  and  police  professionalization,  ensuring  effective 
coordination,  avoiding  a  fragmented  projectized  approach  and  transitioning  to 
more  substantial  Afghan  ownership  on  international  assistance  for  reform 
implementation.  Conditional  to  sustained  political  support  from  the  Afghan 
government and consistent engagement by the international community, LOTFA is 
set  to  further  evolve  into  a  sector-wide  support  facility  for  the  MoI  and  ANP, 
coordinating  more  effectively  than  to  date  with  civilian  government-wide  reform 
programmes  such  as 
(CBR)  public 
administration reform programme and the implementation of the Public Finance 
Management Roadmap. The Commission must however use its instruments in full 
respect  of  established  EU  policy  and  the  regulatory  framework.  Any  activities 
undertaken under the development cooperation instrument must therefore remain 
compatible  with  the  list  of  acceptable  activities  established  in  this  context  by  the 
OECD DAC. 

the  Capacity  Building 

for  Results 

The  first  step  of  the  Mission's  phasing  out  was  the  closure  of  its  Justice/Rule  of 
Law Component at the end of 2015, some activities of which are now followed by 
the  EUSR  team  as  well  as  other  partners.  For  the  remainder  of  its  mandate,  the 
Mission is actively engaged with its Afghan and international partners in order to 
ensure a smooth transition. 

146 

 
 
 
As  decided  by  Member  States,  the  EU  will  continue  its  support  to  Afghanistan 
beyond 2016 in the field of civilian policing possibly by maintaining an expert team 
in Kabul to further provide technical and strategic advice to the MoI and the ANP. 

279. 

(§  134  -  2014/PAR/0516)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
and  the  EEAS  develop  detailed  guidelines  well  in  advance  with  regard  to  the 
downsizing and closure of missions as well as the liquidation of mission assets. 

Commission's response: 

The  EEAS  and  the  Commission  developed  and  are  working  on  more  detailed 
guidelines  on  closing  Missions,  on  the  basis  of  the  already  existing  guidance.  In 
addition, the EEAS and the Commission closely follow the closure of Missions, on 
the basis of a detailed liquidation plan prepared by the closing Mission. 

Part  XIII  –  Special  Report  No  9/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "EU 
support for the fight against torture and the abolition of the death penalty" 

280. 

(§  150  -  2014/PAR/0517)  The  European  Parliament  stresses  that  thinly-spread 
financing - applied in more than 120 countries worldwide - dilutes the impact of the 
EIDHR; urges the Commission to prioritise better and to narrow its focus to improve 
outcomes. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  has  already  narrowed  the  focus  of  its  calls  for  proposals  in  the 
2015 EIDHR global call for proposals launched in August 2015. The lot dedicated 
to the fight against the death penalty has been given priority to countries where the 
death  penalty  is  most in  use.  In  2016,  the  fight  against  torture  and  ill- treatment 
will  be  one  of  the  priority  of  the  call,  in  accordance  with  the  ECA's 
recommendation and in line with the Management's recommendations DEVCO  – 
cf.  https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/dg/devco/devco-management/simplification-
of-devco-processes/Pages/first-set-of-recommendations.aspx  ,  the  fiche  CFP  1 
which  highlights  on  p.  2:  "RECOMMENDATION  1:.  To  limit  the  number  of 
potential  applicants  through  a  better  focus,  both  in  terms  of  geographical  and 
thematic focus of the desired actions as well as through the eligibility criteria". 

Through the Call for Proposals 2016, the thematic focus of the call regarding the 
fight  against  torture  has  been  narrowed,  asking  for  projects  encompassing  the 
following  three  interrelated  and  mutually  reinforcing  elements:  a)  Prevention  of 
torture and other forms of ill-treatment, b) Accountability for torture and other ill 
treatment, c) Support for rehabilitation of victims of torture. 

281. 

(§  153  -  2014/PAR/0518)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  EEAS  and  the 
Commission to increase and mainstream the effectiveness of human rights dialogues, 
country strategies and specific guidelines by ensuring that key human rights like the 
abolition of the death penalty and combating torture are systematically raised at all 
levels of policymaking with third countries. 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

EEAS/EC  refers  to  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Human  Rights  and  Democracy  in 
which all EU stakeholders engage to  increase coherence and complementarity of 
existing  EU  tools,  financing  instruments  and  reporting  mechanisms  used  to 
promote human rights and support democracy. Abolition of the death penalty and 
combating  torture  is  among  the  key  EU  priorities  on  human  rights  and 
systematically  raised  in  our  dialogue  with  countries  concerned  as  well  as  on 
multilateral  level.  Promotion  of  human  rights,  and  the  aforementioned  issues  in 
particular, is also part of our dialogue with like-minded countries. 

282. 

(§ 158 - 2014/PAR/0519) The European Parliament points out that the added value 
of  the  country  strategies  is  limited  due  to  their  strictly  confidential  nature;  calls  on 
the  Commission  to  give  access  to  the  strategies  to  project  assessors  to  secure 
maximum added value. 

Commission's response: 

The  Human  Rights  and  Democracy  strategies  are  EU  restricted  documents. 
Officials of the European Parliament (security cleared) can consult the strategies 
in  EEAS  premises.  Once  the  new  Human  Rights  and  Democracy  strategies  are 
validated  the  EEAS  commits  to  sharing  a  table  of  priorities  by  country,  as  was 
done for the current generation of strategies. Heads of Missions in the respective 
country can decide whether the priorities identified in the strategy should be made 
public, while the document as such remains EU restricted. 

283. 

(§  160  -  2014/PAR/0520)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
speed up and simplify the application process to encourage quality projects to apply. 

Commission's response: 

(1) As of July 2015 PROSPECT, the new online tool that has rendered the call for 
proposals (CfP) paperless, is used for CfPs under direct management launched by 
DEVCO/NEAR and FPI. To-date 94.5% of the applicants submit their applications 
online.  Applicants  are  able  to  track  real-time  the  status  of  their  application  in 
PROSPECT  and  receive  letters  with  their  evaluation  results  online.  Overall, 
PROSPECT has revolutionised the Calls for proposals, a process that used to rely 
heavily  on  paperwork  and  the  use  of  postal  services.  The  simplification  and 
efficiency  gains  from  using  PROSPECT  have  been  acknowledged  by  the 
applicants: 

o  Applicant  organisations  confirmed  that  PROSPECT  simplifies  the  application 
process and provides a better service quality and simplifies the application process 
(95%) (anonymous survey launched by the EC in 2016). 

o  CONCORD  has  praised  the  EC  on  the  simplification  and  streamlining  of  the 
application  submission  process  by  the  introduction  of  PROSPECT  and  the  new 
PADOR  (see  below).  “The  online  proposal  submission  system  PROSPECT  has 
made  the  application  process  more  efficient  and  transparent  as  it  allows 
monitoring of the status and evaluation of the application. Both systems have not 

148 

 
 
 
 
only  saved  us  time  (fast  online  information  updates  and  document  uploads)  and 
valuable funds (no need to dispatch the hard copies with courier services) but have 
also significantly lessened our environmental impact (paperless process).” (Letter 
of CONCORD to the DDG of DEVCO on 03.06.2016). 

(2)  PADOR,  the  online  database  in  which  applicants  to  CfPs  must  register 
information about the legal and financial profile of their organisation (legal entity) 
was also significantly simplified in June 2016. The new PADOR is much lighter, 
more  intuitive  and  user-friendly.  It  offers  a  better  service  to  applicants  and 
facilitates the application procedure. 

284. 

(§  165  -  2014/PAR/0521)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
clarify the requirements in the logical frameworks for projects to improve results and 
added value. 

Commission's response: 

The logical framework template has been updated with a view to increased clarity 
in  the  2015  version  of  the  Practical  guide  to  Procurements  and  Grants  for 
actions 
European 
(http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/prag/header_description=DEVCO+Prag+to+financ
ial+and+contractual+procedures+applicable+to+external+actions+financed+from
+the+general+budget+of+the+EU+and+from+the+11th+EDF&header_keywords=
ePrag%2C+europa). 

external 

Union 

With  regard  to  measuring  the  impact  of  human  rights  projects,  the  very  specific 
and often fluid context in which EIDHR projects are implemented shall be taken 
into account, not to mention that the countries or regions most in need of action as 
regards torture and death penalty are those where progress on these issues cannot 
be  expected  to  be  straightforward.  The  difficulty  of  quantifying  human  rights 
issues  must  also  be  considered.  The  Commission  does  not,  therefore,  consider 
specific targets and baselines as tools that could be used in this specific context. 

285. 

(§  166  -  2014/PAR/0522)  The  European  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  to 
prepare  an  in-depth  impact  assessment  of  the  EIDHR  financing  and  to  draw 
conclusions from such analysis. 

The European Parliament welcomes the fact that the Commission is already working 
on  the  improved  impact  assessment  of  human  rights  projects  and  invites  the 
Commission to share the results with the discharge authority. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  working  on  the  mid-term  review  (MTR)  of  the  EIDHR, 
planned  for  2017.  Independent  auditors  have  been  recruited  to  carry  out  an 
evaluation of  the  EIDHR. The European Parliament  will  be  consulted as part of 
this evaluation as well as of the MTR process.  In addition, an impact assessment 
will be carried out for the next generation of external action instruments. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
286. 

(§  167  -  2014/PAR/0523)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
clarify  the  guidance  and  invites  the  Commission  to  reconsider  improving  the 
standardised evaluation grids. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  effective  entry  into  force  of  PROSPECT  (an  on-line  system  for  the 
management of calls for proposals, including submissions from applicants) in July 
2015  provides  technical  safeguards  to  ensure  adherence  to  the  rules  (  e.g.  the 
correct  evaluation  grids  are  already  provided  by  the  system  and  the  assessors 
cannot  deviate  from  them).  The  Commission  has  furthermore  introduced  the 
option  to  re-evaluate  the  relevance  of  the  action  at  the  full  application  stage  in 
order to allow colleagues who are closer to the field to have a say in this regard. 
This should also contribute to a continued high quality of assessments. 

287. 

(§  168  -  2014/PAR/0524)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
mitigate the shortcomings in its assessment highlighted by the Court. 

Commission's response: 

The accepted recommendations of the Court have been taken into account in the 
2015 and 2016 EIDHR global calls for proposals. 

288. 

(§  169  -  2014/PAR/0525)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
ensure  that  the  EIDHR  funds  are  used  in  an  effective  manner  by  securing  the 
feasibility, viability and added value of the projects, which could be done by setting 
minimum requirements for the results of the project in the calls for proposals. 

Commission's response: 

With  regard  to  measuring  the  impact  of  human  rights  projects,  the  very  specific 
and often fluid context in which EIDHR projects are implemented shall be taken 
into account, not to mention that the countries or regions most in need of action as 
regards torture and death penalty are those where progress on these issues cannot 
be  expected  to  be  straightforward.  The  difficulty  of  quantifying  human  rights 
issues  must  also  be  considered.  The  Commission  does  not,  therefore,  consider 
specific  targets  and  baselines  as  tools  that  could  be  used  in  this  specific  context. 
However,  as  any  other  external  assistance  projects,  the  EIDHR  projects  include 
results indicators. 

289. 

(§  171  -  2014/PAR/0526)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
improve the consistency of project evaluations. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  has  elaborated  detailed  "Guidelines  for  Assessors"  for  the 
EIDHR global call for proposals 2015, in order to improve the consistency of the 
scoring  procedure.  This  practice  will  be  kept  in  the  next  EIDHR  annual  global 
calls for proposals. 

290. 

(§  172  -  2014/PAR/0527)  The  European  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  to 
clarify the rules regarding the flat-rate amount. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

Chapter 19 of the latest version of the DEVCO Companion – The implementation 
of grants contracts – provides a single, comprehensive and appropriate explanation 
of the flat-rate concept with respect to indirect eligible costs (point 19.3.1.5./article 
14.7:  Indirect  costs)  and  is  available  to  the  general  public,  thus  ensuring  a 
harmonised interpretation of the standard grant contract by beneficiaries. 

Part XIV – Special Report No 10/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Efforts 
to  address  problems  with  public  procurement  in  EU  cohesion  expenditure 
should be intensified" 

291. 

(§ 185 - 2014/PAR/0528) The European Parliament welcomes the fact that while the 
Commission  has  long  addressed  the  problems  of  public  procurement  errors  which 
were evident in the area of cohesion policy, it is now doing so in a more coordinated 
way under the umbrella of the public procurement action plan; calls in this context 
on the Commission to push forward the implementation of this plan and report on its 
progress annually. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the recommended action. 

In  December  2015,  the  updated  action  plan  has  been  endorsed  by  all  relevant 
Commission  services  and  published.  Commissioners  responsible  respectively  for 
Internal market and for Regional and Urban policy are having regular high level 
meetings  (so-called  'jours  fixes')  to  provide  political  leadership.  The  last  meeting 
took place on 14 June 2016 with participation of the responsible Vice President. A 
special working group has also been set-up to coordinate all the efforts, implement 
the plan, and to monitor and update the actions foreseen. 

The  Commission  intends  to  report  regularly  on  the  progress.  The  action  plan  is 
published on the Inforegio website (accessible for all interested stakeholders) and 
updated regularly. 

Part XV – Special Report No 11/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "Are the 
Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?" 

292. 

(§  191  -  2014/PAR/0529)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Commission  to  better 
respect the exclusivity clause; notes that, although some factors do not depend on the 
Commission,  it  should  start  the  process  of  negotiating  a  new  protocol  well  in 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
advance  of  the  expiry  of  the  current  one;  urges  the  Commission  to  shorten 
negotiation periods wherever possible. 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation 
the 
Commission  is  entering  into  negotiations  with  partner  countries  or  with 
prospective partner countries, to either negotiate one Agreements or Protocols. 

is  being  progressively 

implemented  whenever 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  exclusivity  clause  is  an  essential  element  of 
Agreements  and  Protocols  which  echoes  provisions  of  the  Basic  Regulation 
(Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013). It is therefore keen on ensuring its 
full respect by EU fishing vessels engaged outside EU waters. 

In that context, the  Commission  proposal of  10 December 2015 for a Regulation 
on  the  sustainable  management  of  external  fishing  fleets  (COM(2015)  636  final) 
should provide additional guarantee regarding the sustainable character of fishing 
activity  outside  EU  waters, 
including  for  vessels  fishing  under  "direct 
authorisations",  i.e.  outside  the  scope  of  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreements  (SFPAs).  Once  this  Regulation  adopted,  it  would  allow  for  possible 
review of the exclusivity clause and of the dormant agreements. 

As  for  the  length  of  the  negotiation  process,  the  Commission  is  willing  to  start 
negotiations  as  early  as  possible  but  recalls  that  the  overall  duration  of  the 
negotiations  depend  also  on  the  position  taken  by  third  countries  and  the 
assessment of the negotiation process by interested parties such as Member States 
and economic operators. 

293. 

(§  192  -  2014/PAR/0530)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
improve  consistency  between  the  FPAs  and  other  Union  initiatives  and  funding 
sources in the fisheries sector within the same region, to define regional strategies for 
the  development  of  fisheries  governance  and  to  ensure  that  protocols  negotiated 
within  the  same  region  are  consistent  with  the  relevant  regional  strategy  and  with 
other Union funding. 

Commission's response: 

This  Recommendation  has  been  progressively  implemented  and  respected  when 
considering  the  financial  perspectives  of  the  funding  provided  through  the 
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs). 

The  new  CFP  has  made  “consistency  with  other  Union  policies”  one  of  its 
principles  of  good  governance  (Article  3(h)  of  Regulation  (EU)  N°  1380/2013). 
Cooperation  with  DG  DEVCO,  both  at  senior  management  and  desk  level,  has 
been enhanced for the last two years with the objective to promote a more efficient 
use  of  the  financial  support  provided  by  the  EU,  either  through  SFPAs  or  EDF 
(European  Development  Fund),  and  by  other  donors.  In  addition,  the  Fisheries 
Attachés in the EU Delegation also contributes in situ to ensuring complementarity 
of  actions  financed  through different channels  and programmes,  including those 

152 

 
 
 
 
from other donors. Overall, there is coherence and consistency in the approaches 
taken in respect of our partner countries. 

A  regional  approach  is  also  being  developed  around  the  three  main  regions 
concerned:  Eastern  Atlantic,  Indian  Ocean  and  Pacific  with  the  objective  to 
reinforce  the  SFPA  network  approach,  ensure  complementarity  between  SFPAs 
and  RFMOs  (Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations)  and  consistency 
with  other  relevant  programmes  benefiting  the  regions  at  stake,  such  as  the 
Indicative Regional Programmes co-financed by the European Development Fund. 
This will continue to be one of the objectives to be followed by the Commission in 
all future Protocols to be negotiated or renegotiated. 

294. 

(§  193  -  2014/PAR/0531)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
focus  more  on  restrictive  technical  conditions,  such  as  the  narrow  definition  of 
fishing areas. 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  is  being  progressively  implemented  through  the  process  of 
negotiations with third countries for new Protocols. 

The  Commission  takes  good  note  of  the  possible  adverse  effect  that  restrictive 
conditions can have on the profitability of the EU fishing fleet. However, it wishes 
to  recall  that  they  are  also  agreed  between  both  parties  to  ensure  a  sustainable 
exploitation  of  the  different  stocks,  to  reduce  the  impact  of  fishing  activities  on 
marine ecosystems and to avoid conflicts between offshore foreign industrial fleets 
and  coastal  State  inshore  artisanal,  in  line  with  the  CFP  principles.  In  addition, 
they are often enshrined in the national legislation of the partner countries and are 
therefore not always negotiable. 

295. 

(§ 194 - 2014/PAR/0532) The European Parliament asks the Commission to consider 
the  utilisation  of  previous  protocols  and  to  endeavour  better  to  link  payments  for 
access rights to actual catches, while ensuring that fishing activities are not adversely 
affected. 

Commission's response: 

This  Recommendation  is  being  progressively  implemented  by  the  Commission 
during the negotiation of new Agreements and Protocols. 

The payment for access rights is subject to negotiations and agreement of both the 
EU and the third country concerned. However, the Commission in all negotiations 
of Protocols always takes as a starting point of discussions with the third country 
concerned, the utilisation rates of the previous Protocol. The means to attain better 
utilisation of the Protocols is being addressed in the development of the negotiation 
strategy for each new Protocol. This leads, subject to the negotiations, to the access 
payments  being  more  directly  linked  to  the  actual  catches  while  taking  into 
consideration the realistic perspectives for future fishing activities. 

153 

 
 
 
 
It is important to note that stock availability for tuna SFPAs (Sustainable Fisheries 
Partnership  Agreements)  is  highly  variable  due  to  the  migratory  nature  of  the 
species and environmental conditions. These factors may lead to a situation where 
fishing  activity  by  the  EU  fleet  is  indeed  less  than  initally  projected  and  the 
amounts caught differs from the reference tonnage on which access payments are 
based. However, the access payment paid on EU budget needs to provide a degree 
of  financial  security  and  predictability  to  our  partner  country  regarding  income 
from the SFPAs. 

296. 

(§  195  -  2014/PAR/0533)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
take  into  account  the  principles  of  economy,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  when 
preparing  the  FPA  negotiations  to  guarantee  value  for  money  and  compliance  with 
sound financial management. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  implementing  this  Recommendation  whenever  negotiations 
with  our  partner  countries  take  place.  Therefore,  the  Commission  considers  that 
this Recommendation is in the process of being progressively implemented. 

In all recent negotiations, the issues of sound financial management and value for 
money played a major part in the development of the negotiations. This is reflected 
in the restructuring of the financial component which now sees the vessel owners 
taking a greater share of the financial burden of access payments away from the 
EU. 

297. 

(§ 198 - 2014/PAR/0534) The European Parliament urges the Commission to use the 
most  up-to-date  data  for  its  ex  post  report;  asks  the  Commission  to  make  this 
available to stakeholders in a timely manner. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  of  the  view  that  this  Recommendation  has  been  implemented 
(completion  date:  date  of  the  final  evaluation  report  of  January  2016  on  the 
Protocol to the FPA between the EU and Mauritius). 

The  Commission  relies  on  data  provided  by  Member  States  as  required  by  EU 
legislation. It has developed a new centralized catch reporting system which allows 
for  continuous  follow-up  and  monitoring.  Data  availability  is  improved  by 
comparing the reported catches with the set reference tonnage or quota from the 
protocol  on  a  constant  basis.  Controls  will  be  introduced  in  order  to  increase 
monitoring when reported catches reach a certain percentage close to the allocated 
fishing opportunities or the catch reference levels. 

This  information  is  provided  through  the  ex-ante  evaluation/ex-post  evaluation 
and  transmitted  to  the  Member  States  and  the  European  Parliament  once  the 
evaluation  is  finalized  and  approved.  At  the  same  time  it  is  placed  on  the 
appropriate Commission information web-site so that all stakeholders have access 
to this information. 

154 

 
 
 
 
298. 

(§  199  -  2014/PAR/0535)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
promote  the  acceptance  of  electronic  licences  or  of  a  list  of  authorised  vessels  in 
partner countries for the whole period of validity of the licences; highlights the need 
to  reduce  delays  in  the  licence  application  process;  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
identify and reduce procedural bottlenecks. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  applying  this  Recommendation  since  2015  in  each  new 
negotiation for an Agreement or Protocol that it undertakes, and is currently on-
going. 

The Commission has and will continue to encourage the use of electronic licences 
in  the  future  Protocols.  In  2015  the  Commission  has  launched  the  so-called 
"Licence  IT  project"  to  record  both  the  transmission  and  follow-up  of 
authorisations, in a digital manner. This project is on-going. 

The Commission is keen to provide for a process for automatic electronic provision 
of  fishing  authorisations,  but  this  is  also  dependent  upon  the  third  countries' 
acceptance  of  these  procedures.  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  is  actively 
seeking  in  all  negotiations  provisions  that  would  allow  fishing  to  continue,  for  a 
minimal  period  of  time,  on  the  basis  of  an  electronically  provided  authorisation. 
This is to allow for the delivery of the original license to be retained on board the 
vessel. 

The  Commission  would  underline  that  the  vast  majority  of  cases  relating  to  the 
delayed  transmission  of  fishing  authorisations  are  the  result  of  delays  in  the 
administrations of the third countries. 

299. 

(§  200  -  2014/PAR/0536)  The  European  Parliament  invites  the  Commission  to 
ensure that the new catch database is fully used by flag Member States and provides 
reliable catch data that can be consolidated, monitored and kept up-to-date 

Commission's response: 

This Recommendation is in the process of being implemented. 

On  31  October  2015  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1962 
amending Control Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 was published. In 
Title  IX  a  new  chapter  was  inserted  which  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
exchange of data related to the reporting of aggregated catch data. It specifies that 
from  1  January  2016  Member  States  shall  use  the  catch  database  for  the  catch 
data  required  by  Article  13(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1006/2008. 
Currently all but two Member States are transmitting the data. The Commission is 
in contact with the last two Member States in order to solve all technical issues. 

300. 

(§  201  -  2014/PAR/0537)  The  European  Parliament  notes  with  concern  that  the 
database  for  catch-data  management  was  still  not  operational  at  the  time  of  the 
Court's  audit  and  that  Member  States  had  not  complied  with  their  reporting 
requirements;  invites  the  Commission  to  remedy  this  issue  in  partnership  with 
Member States and to include clear and consistent data regarding actual final catches, 

155 

 
 
 
 
in  order  to  avoid  possible  negative  financial  consequences  when  the  final  catch  is 
higher than the reference tonnage. 

Commission's response: 

This Recommendation is being progressively implemented by the Commission. 

On  31  October  2015  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1962 
amending Control Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 was published. In 
Title  IX  a  new  chapter  was  inserted  which  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
exchange of data related to the reporting of aggregated catch data. It specifies that 
from  1  January  2016  Member  States  shall  use  the  catch  database  for  the  catch 
data  required  by  Article  13(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1006/2008. 
Currently  all  but  two  Member  States  are  transmitting  the  data  correctly.  The 
Commission  is  in  contact  with  the  last  two  Member  States  in  order  to  solve  all 
technical issues. 

For  non-tuna  species,  there  are  regular  meetings  between  the  Commission  and 
partner  third  countries  within  the  context  of  the  SFPAs  (Sustainable  Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements) to review catch reporting and validation of data. 

For  partner  countries  having  tuna  Agreements  with  the  EU,  meetings  have  been 
held  annually  between  EU  scientific  institutions  and  the  appropriate  scientific 
institutes of third countries in order to review the catch data received and also to 
have  an  harmonized  approach  regarding  the  validation  and  consolidation  of  the 
catch data. 

301. 

(§  202  -  2014/PAR/0538)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  Commission  to 
monitor  more  closely  the  implementation  of  sectoral  support  to  ensure  its 
effectiveness  and  cost-effectiveness;  asks  the  Commission  to  ensure  effective 
coordination  of 
the 
Commission  to  include in the protocols  formal eligibility conditions  for the funded 
actions. 

implemented  by  partner  countries; 

the  actions 

invites 

Commission's response: 

This recommendation is in the process of being implemented. The guidelines have 
been  updated  following  the  report  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  and  are  in 
the process of being discussed with the various partner countries. 

Following  the  new  CFP,  payments  are  now  directly  linked  to  the  utilisation  and 
performance  of  the  sectoral  support.  Protocols  now  include  provisions  to 
"decouple"  the  payments  of  access  rights  and  sectoral  support  and  provisions  to 
allow for revision in justified cases, and ultimately a suspension of sectoral support 
payments. 

302. 

(§  203  -  2014/PAR/0539)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
ensure that  sectoral  support  disbursements  are consistent  with  other  budget  support 
payments  and  based  on  the  results  achieved  by  partner  countries  in  the 
implementation of the matrix of commonly agreed actions. 

156 

 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  is  in  the  process  of  being  implemented  gradually  with  the 
partner countries. 

There  is  improved  coherence  and  consistency  between  the  implementation  of 
development  policies  and  the  disbursement  of  SFPA  (Sustainable  Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements) sectoral support. This is applied on the basis of targeted, 
identifiable actions with clear achievement indicators against which performance 
can be measured. Other donors' actions and projects are also taken into account in 
the  matrix  which  is  discussed  in  Joint  Committees  which  aims  at  identifying  the 
real needs of the partner countries and the final programme of activities. 

Disbursements  are  considered  in  that  context  and  if  it  is  observed  that  there  has 
not  been  adequate  utilization  of  the  funding  provided,  payment  for  the  following 
years’ sectoral support contribution may be suspended. 

303. 

(§ 204 - 2014/PAR/0540) The European Parliament calls on the Commission, where 
possible,  to  include  in  the  new  protocols  the  possibility  of  partial  payments  of 
sectoral support. 

Commission's response: 

This Recommendation is in the process of being implemented through notably the 
introduction of the guidelines for the implementation of the sectoral support which 
will be agreed with partner countries on an individual basis. 

If  there  have  been  no  or  limited  results  achieved  on  a  priority  action/project, 
payment  of  the  sectoral  support in the  following  year  will be  suspended  until  the 
targets  have  been  met.  This  has  to  be  seen  in  the  context  that  actions  are  in  the 
main  not  limited  in  duration  to  the  financial  year  in  question  but  may  be  of  a 
multiannual nature. 

The Commission endeavours in all negotiations for new Agreements or Protocols 
to include provisions allowing for the partial payment of sectoral support in case 
results achieved are deemed not satisfactory. 

Part  XVI  –  Special  Report  No  12/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "The 
EU  priority  of  promoting  a  knowledge-based rural  economy  has  been  affected 
by poor management of knowledge-transfer and advisory measures" 

304. 

(§ 205 - 2014/PAR/0541) The European Parliament requests that the Member States 
put in place procedures to analyse the knowledge and skills needs of rural operators 
that  go  beyond  the  setting  of  broad  themes,  in  particular  for  calls  for  proposals  or 
tender  periods,  and  that  the  Commission  provide  additional  guidance  on  how 
Member States should carry out such recurrent analyses, formulating this in specific 
rather than general terms. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The  Commission  updated  the  guidance  document  adding  that  Member  States 
should carry out an analysis of knowledge and skills  needed in the programming 
area. The guidance document was presented to the RDC on 25 May. 

305. 

(§  209  -  2014/PAR/0542)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
provide  additional  specific  guidance  on  in-house  delivery,  subcontracting  and  the 
assessment  of  service  delivery  by  consortiums  and  adequately  monitor  Member 
States’  procedures  to  ensure  that  the  selection  of  knowledge-transfer  and  advisory 
activities is competitive, fair and transparent. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission updated the guidance document on public procurement and rural 
development  which  was  presented to  the  Member  States  in  the  RDC  in  February 
2016.  The  selection  of  beneficiaries  under  this  measure  is  governed  by  public 
procurement law ensuring a fair, transparent and competitive procedure. 

Furthermore,  information  on  the  in-house  delivery  was  also  included  in  the 
measures  fiches  for  measures  1  and  2  that  were  presented  to  the  RDC  in  May 
2016. 

306. 

(§  211  -  2014/PAR/0543)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
build  on  the  first  steps  taken  to  ensure  complementarity  between  Union  funds  to 
mitigate the risk of double-funding and duplication of administration. 

Commission's response: 

Complementarity  between  Union  funds  is  ensured  through  the  Partnership 
Agreement as well as in the relevant section of the Rural Development Programme 
(Chapter 14 "Information on complementarity"). 

Besides, 
the  Commission  established  working  procedures  and  relevant 
inter‑service  groups  to assess  the  issues  of  complementarity  and  double  funding 
between different EU funds (e.g. the ESIF interpretation network, other networks 
on  specific  elements  of  the  regulation  such  as  simplified  cost  working  group, 
thematic networks, or Financial instruments compass platform). 

307. 

(§  212  -  2014/PAR/0544)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  Member  States  to 
establish  feedback  systems  that  use  monitoring  and  evaluation  information  to 
improve upcoming calls for proposals or tendering procedures and requests that the 
Commission  provide  guidance  to  Member  States  as  to  how  they  may  execute  such 
recurrent feedback procedures and that it monitor whether Member States  have  put 
them in place. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  provide  guidance  on  the  implementation  of  the 
CMES established in the relevant regulations. 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
There  are  standard  methodologies  to  ensure  the  use  of  feedback  procedures, 
monitoring and evaluations of results as well as impact of training activities. The 
Commission  will  encourage  the  exchange  of  good  practices  in  the  framework  of 
the European Network for Rural Development. 

However, according to the legal framework, the Commission is not responsible for 
monitoring that such feedback procedures are in place. 

308. 

(§  213  -  2014/PAR/0545)  The  european  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
increase without delay the risk profile of knowledge-transfer and advisory measures 
and enhance its supervision and management accordingly. 

Commission's response: 

The risk analysis is based on seven risk factors, the level of expenditure being the 
most  important  one.  However,  one  of  the  remaining  risk  factors  is  the  Court  of 
Auditor's findings. The findings  of this special report were taken into account in 
the  risk-mapping  in  the  preparation  of  DG  AGRI's  audit  multi-annual  work 
programme 2016-2018. 

309. 

(§  215  -  2014/PAR/0546)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
communicate  comprehensive  assessment  of  consultancy  services  with  a  focus  on 
outcomes  and  net  effects  in  order  to  avoid  a  purely  quantitative  evaluation  of 
investment. 

Commission's response: 

The COM is not in a position to provide an assessment of the consultancy services 
in  the  MS.  However,  the  Standing  Committee  on  Agricultural  Research  (SCAR), 
particularly  by  the  working  group  on  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation 
systems (AKIS), provides information and assesses the functioning of the advisory 
services in the EU. In 2015 they produced the study PRO AKIS, supported by the 
7th Framework Programme, focused on the state of farm advisory services in the 
Member States. 

310. 

(§  216  -  2014/PAR/0547)  The  European  Parliament  requests  that  the  Commission 
promote  the  exchange  of  good  practices  on  methodological  approaches  through 
networking activities. 

Commission's response: 

The  National  Rural  Networks  (NRN)  and  the  European  Network  for  Rural 
Development  (ENRD)  organize  activities  for  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and 
facilitate the dissemination of this information in their websites. 

As an example, the Spanish NRN organized a seminar on measure 2 in April 2016. 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
Part  XVII  –  Special  Report  No  13/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "EU 
Support to timber-producing countries under the FLEGT Action Plan" 

311. 

(§  222  -  2014/PAR/0548)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
prioritise its aid efforts through clear objectives and criteria; invites the Commission 
therefore to move away from structuring Union funding from different budgets and 
consider using one single, clearly defined budget. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission agrees that clearer objectives, priorities and timelines need to be 
established. It should be noted that the absence of a specific implementation plan 
for  FLEGT  until  now  reflects  the  difficulty  of  establishing  specific  goals,  targets 
and a timeframe for a policy that combines a broad range of policy, regulatory and 
financial/technical assistance measures by a broad range of countries and actors. 
These challenges remain. 

The structuring of international cooperation on FLEGT into one single budget is 
not  considered  possible  at  the  moment.  The  funding  to  FLEGT  currently  comes 
from  different  programmes  (e.g.  national  indicative  programmes,  Global  Public 
Goods and Challenges programme, etc.), making the pooling of all FLEGT-related 
funding difficult. 

312. 

(§  223  -  2014/PAR/0549)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
reinforce  swiftly  transparency  and  accountability  frameworks  through  monitoring 
and  regular  reporting,  including  appropriate  progress  assessment;  urges  the 
Commission furthermore to monitor and report on the implementation of the Union 
timber regulation in Member States and to take the necessary legal action to ensure 
its application. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  already  reports  regularly  on  FLEGT 
through  various 
mechanisms,  such  as  meetings  of  the  Council  working  party  on  forests,  of  the 
FLEGT committee and of the FLEGT-EUTR expert groups. 

A progress report on the implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan was prepared 
in 2011, on the basis of input from EU Member States. An independent evaluation 
of the FLEGT Action Plan was undertaken in 2015 and published in 2016. It has 
been the subject of Council conclusions. 

these  agreements  also  entail  specific  measures 

Monitoring and reporting also takes place at the level of individual measures. For 
example,  annual  reports  are  published  for  all  VPA  implementation  countries, 
while 
to 
transparency and accountability. Regarding EU support to developing countries, it 
should be noted that all projects funded by the EU in the context of the FLEGT are 
subject to standard reporting, monitoring and audit requirements that apply to all 
EU external aid projects. 

that  contribute 

On the EUTR specifically, the Commission has recently completed a review of the 
effectiveness  of  the  EU  Timber  Regulation  during  its  first  two  years  of 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
implementation  and  a  report  was  released  on  18  February  2016  (COM(2016)74 
final). The Commission has also initiated in 2015 infringement procedures against 
the  four  remaining  non-compliant  Member  States  (Greece,  Hungary,  Romania 
and Spain). 

313. 

(§  224  -  2014/PAR/0550)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
streamline  and  better  coordinate  its  efforts  to  fight  illegal  logging  across  different 
Union policies and the services involved. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission considers that the FLEGT is in fact a good example of EU policy 
coherence, with complementary actions being implemented in various policy areas 
–  such  as  environment,  public  procurement  and  development  as  well  as 
international  cooperation.  Nevertheless,  it  accepts  that  there  is  still  room  to 
improve policy coherence. As indicated in the official reply of the Commission to 
the Court of Auditors Special Report no 13/2015, steps have been already taken by 
the  Commission  to  foster  synergies  with  other  forest-related  initiatives,  such  as 
REDD+.  These  efforts  contribute  to  the  overall  coherence  of  the  FLEGT  Action 
Plan and of EU intervention in the forestry sector. 

314. 

(§  226  -  2014/PAR/0551)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
negotiate  timber  import  standards  in  future  bilateral  or  multilateral  trade  related 
agreements,  in  order  not  to  undermine  the  successes  achieved  through  the  FLEGT 
Action Plan with timber-producing countries. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The EU approach in recent negotiations of bilateral trade agreements has been to 
include a Trade and Sustainable Chapter with commitments on a number of trade-
related  environment  and  labour  issues,  including  combatting  of  illegal  logging. 
Where  relevant, 
the  agreements  also  cross-reference  FLEGT  Voluntary 
Partnership Agreements, e.g. the agreements with Central America and Vietnam. 

Part XVIII – Special Report No 14/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The 
ACP Investment Facility: does it provide added-value?" 

315. 

(§  233  -  2014/PAR/0552)  The  European  Parliament  calls  therefore  on  the 
Commission  to  take  into  account  the  Court's  recommendations  in  its  future 
legislative  proposals  and  negotiations  such  as  in  the  revision  of  the  EIB's  external 
mandate or the post-Cotonou agreement. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
There is an ongoing discussion on this issue expected to be completed by the first 
half of 2017. 

316. 

(§ 234 - 2014/PAR/0553) The European Parliament Recommends a swift adaptation 
of the Investment Facility and EIB's policy according to the outcome of the COP21 
and  the  possible  post-2015  Millennium  Development  Goal  as  a  matter  of  political 
consistency from the Union. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is taking the requested action. 

317. 

There is an ongoing discussion on this issue expected to be completed by the first 
half of 2017. 

Part  XIX  –  Special  Report  No  15/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled  "EU 
Energy Facility support for renewable energy in East Africa" 

(§  243  -  2014/PAR/0554)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission's 
Directorate-General  for  International  Cooperation  and  Development  (DG  DEVCO) 
to  make  sure  that  the  implementing  partners  answer  all  requests  for  additional 
information concerning the implementation of the project(s); calls on DG DEVCO to 
focus  especially  on  potential  corruption  and/or  fraud-related  activities  by  the 
implementing  partners,  while  avoiding  unnecessary  additional  administrative 
burdens;  and  in  the  case  of  corruption  and/or  fraud,  calls  on  DG  DEVCO  to  duly 
terminate contracts and look for new partners in the region. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

To  complement  the  standard  tools  available  to  monitor  a  project,  including  for 
identifying  any  possible  problem  and  proposing  proper  and  timely  solutions,  the 
Commission  has  put  in  place  a  permanent  Energy  Facility  monitoring  function 
available  under  a  service  contract.  This  instrument  is  managed  centrally  by  DG 
DEVCO and is accessible by all EU Delegations concerned, in order to gather all 
information  and  allow  immediate  action  with  the  grant  beneficiaries  whenever 
needed. In addition, the task to detect any potential corruption and/or fraud-related 
activities that could occur at the level of the implementing partners, is fulfilled by 
all services in charge of managing grant contracts in line with the prevailing rules 
and procedures and there is zero tolerance in case such incidents are detected. 

318. 

(§  244  -  2014/PAR/0555)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
ensure  policy  coherence  and  close  cooperation  with  the  other  actors  in  the  field, 
especially UN bodies and the SE4ALL (Sustainable Energy for All), but not only in 
the field of energy, in view of achieving the best possible results for people living in 
the region and the environment. 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The Commission keeps regular contact with all main actors in the energy field, in 
the East Africa region and elsewhere, so as to ensure coordination of actions and 
policy  coherence.  The  main  coordination  platforms  used  are  SE4ALL  (including 
participation  in  the  SE4ALL  Advisory  Board)  for  coordination  with  UN,  World 
Bank, CSOs and all stakeholders active in the initiative; the EU Energy Initiative 
for  coordination  with  all  Member  States;  the  several  Joint  Declarations  for 
reinforced  coordination  in  the  field  of  sustainable  energy  (20  Joint  Declarations 
signed 
the 
to  date  with  partner  countries  and  donors,  of  which  4 
East/South/IOC  Africa  region  -  Uganda,  Kenya,  Madagascar,  Indian  Ocean 
Commission); the Memorandum of Understanding and regular meetings with the 
Power Africa initiative. 

in 

Part  XX  –  Special  Report  No  16/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled 
"Improving  the  security  of  energy  supply  by  developing  the  internal  energy 
market: more efforts needed" 

319. 

(§  251  -  2014/PAR/0556)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
allocate  increased  financial  resources  and  powers  necessary  to  the  Agency  for  the 
Cooperation of Energy Regulators. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  taking  the  requested  action.  It  is  looking  into  possibilities  to 
reinforce the existing powers of ACER, including vis-à-vis Member States, so as to 
adjust the Agency's tasks and responsibilities to the realities of a more integrated 
internal market. A legal proposal (Electricity Market Design Initiative) is expected 
by the end of 2016 and is likely to include measures to strengthen ACER's role and 
independence. While revising the powers of the Agency, the Commission will also 
look carefully into providing adequate resources for ACER to meet both new and 
existing  tasks,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council. 

Part  XXI  –  Special  Report  No  17/2015  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  entitled 
"Commission's  support  of  youth  action  teams:  redirection  of  ESF  funding 
achieved, but insufficient focus on results" 

320. 

(§ 259 - 2014/PAR/0557) The European Parliament calls on the Commission to set 
up  an  early  warning  mechanism  against  unutilised  ESIF  appropriations  so  that 
Member  States  have  sufficient  time  to  reallocate  funds  to  youth  employment 
measures. 

Commission's response: 

According  to  Article  88  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  (Common  Provisions 
Regulation  –  CPR),  the  Commission  has  the  obligation  to  inform  Member  States 
and  the  Managing  Authorities  in  good  time  whenever  there  is  a  risk  of  de-

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
commitment of amounts in Operational Programmes. Thus, the Member States are 
well-informed of the amount of funding which is pending de-commitment and has 
the  possibility  to  claim  it  through  interim  payment  applications.  The  first  de-
commitment  deadline  in  the  current  programming  period  will  be  at  the  end  of 
2017. 

In terms of re-allocation, Member States can at any time request, if justified, the 
amendment of programmes in order to reallocate funding to measures that address 
urgent  challenges,  for  instance,  youth  unemployment.  Moreover,  Article  23  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  (Common  Provisions  Regulation  –  CPR)  allows 
the Commission to request a Member State to propose amendments to programmes 
and reallocate resources to youth employment measures, in case the Member State 
has received a country-specific recommendation on youth employment, with a view 
to support its implementation. 

Finally, the Commission recalls that more precise financial information lies within 
the Managing Authorities of the Member States who are in charge of the day-to-
day management of the ESIF, since they have real-time information on the level of 
signed  ESIF  contracts  with  beneficiaries  and  payments  execution  with  regard  to 
the beneficiaries on-the-ground. 

Part XXII – Special Report No 20/2015 of the Court of Auditors entitled "The 
cost-effectiveness  of  EU  Rural  Development  support  for  non-productive 
investments in agriculture" 

321. 

(§  261  -  2014/PAR/0558)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  encourage  Member  States  to  implement  non-productive  investments 
(NPIs)  more  in  synergy  with  other  rural  development  measures  and  environmental 
the  relevant  Member  States' 
the  Commission  monitor 
schemes  and 
implementation through their annual implementation reports from 2017. 

that 

Commission's response: 

The  new  rural  development  legal  framework  for  the  period  2014-2020  already 
provides for setting a better synergy between various measures towards the policy 
objectives. In this respect, it is considered that this part of the recommendation is 
implemented.  The  part  of 
the  annual 
implementation  report  will  be  implemented  during  assessment  of  the  annual 
reports which will first be submitted in 2016. 

the  recommendation  related 

to 

322. 

(§  262  -  2014/PAR/0559)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  provide  guidance  to  Member  States  on  NPIs'  selection  criteria  for  the 
2014-2020 programming period and check that they apply appropriate procedures for 
the selection of projects. 

Commission's response: 

Guidance documents  on selection criteria as well  as training and workshop were 
provided to Member States. This part of the recommendation is done. 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
With  regard  to  checking  the  application  of  the  appropriate  procedure,  the 
Commission will continue to carry out conformity audits in the Member States in 
accordance with its audit planning and such audit also checks that the expenditure 
paid  is  in  compliance  with  the  rules  including  appropriate  procedures  for  the 
selection and appraisal of projects. This process is ongoing. 

323. 

(§  263  -  2014/PAR/0560)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  ensure  that  the  contribution  of  NPIs  to  achieving  the  Union  agri-
environmental  objectives  is  monitored,  or  at  least  specifically  assessed  during  the 
evaluations of the 2014-2020 programming period. 

Commission's response: 

The  2014-2020  CMES  monitors  the  implementation  of  the  measure  whereas  the 
evaluation  will  consider  its  performance  in  the  context  of  the  relevant  RD 
objectives. 

The  Commission  ensures  that  the  contribution  of  NPIs  to  achieving  the  Union 
agri-environmental  objectives 
the 
investment measure fiches with complementary recommendation concerning NPI 
monitoring. 

is  monitored.  The  Commission  updated 

324. 

(§  264  -  2014/PAR/0561)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  encourage  and  assist  those  Member  States  where  NPI  support  is 
significant to define specific result indicators for the NPIs most frequently funded in 
order  to  ensure  better  monitoring  and  assessment  of  the  NPIs'  contribution  to 
achieving the Union agri-environmental objectives. 

Commission's response: 

In  the  guidelines  on  the  "Assessment  of  RDP  results  –  How  to  prepare  for 
reporting on evaluation in 2017" the Commission will encourage and support the 
Member States where NPI support is significant to define specific result indicators. 

The  Commission  is  currently  developing  these  guidelines,  which  should  be 
finalized by the end of 2016. 

325. 

(§  265  -  2014/PAR/0562)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  provide  further  guidance  on  the  definition  of  criteria  which  determine 
the remunerative characteristics of NPIs benefiting from the highest aid rates. 

Commission's response: 

The recommendation was taken on board and the guidance document was updated 
accordingly on non-productive investments. The modified guidance document was 
shared with the MS and was presented during the Rural Development Committee 
on 25/05/2016. 

326. 

(§  267  -  2014/PAR/0563)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  use  the  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  regarding  the 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
controllability  and  verifiability  of  the  measures  for  the  approval  of  their  RDPs  for 
2014-2020 to ensure that Member States define and implement adequate procedures 
regarding  the  reasonableness  of  costs,  and  to  verify  Member  States'  effective 
application  of  the  controls  foreseen  in  this  regard;  recommends  also  that  the 
Commission  facilitates  exchange  of  good  practices  between  Member  States 
concerning establishment of procedures for cost-reasonableness checks. 

Commission's response: 

During  the  screening  of  the  Rural  Development  Programmes  for  the  2014-2020 
programming  period,  the  Commission  paid  attention  to  check  the  controllability 
and  verifiability  section  of  the  measures.  If  this  explanation  was  missing  or  was 
not  detailed  enough,  MS  had  to  provide  additional  information.  Different 
workshops  and  meetings  have  been  used  to  facilitate  exchange  of  good  practices 
between Member States on procedures for cost-reasonableness checks. 

327. 

(§  269  -  2014/PAR/0564)  The  European  Parliament  recommends  that  the 
Commission  take  into  consideration  the  weaknesses  identified  by  the  Court  in  the 
area of NPI expenditures and take appropriate measures together with Member States 
to ensure proper financial management for these kind of investments. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission takes due account of the Court’s findings in establishing its audit 
planning which is determined on the basis of a risk analysis, The risk analysis is 
based on seven risk factors, the level of expenditure being the most important one. 
The  findings  of  this  special  report  are  taken  into  account  in  the  future  audit 
planning starting from June 2016.The process is ongoing. 

European External Action Service 

328. 

(§ 3 - 2014/PAR/0565) The European Parliament is concerned by the fact that staff 
allowances  were  already  a  point  of  concern  and  were  subject  to  errors  in  previous 
years; requests that more rigorous controls on this matter be performed on behalf of 
the  EEAS  by  the  Office  for  the  Administration  and  Payment  of  Individual 
Entitlements. 

Commission's response: 

Measures have been taken to correct the detected weaknesses. 

As from  2016, all household allowances granted  on the  basis of  spouse's income 
will have an end date ≤ n+4 (n being the latest exercise carried out by the PMO to 
inquiry about the spouse's revenues). This will result in default verification before 
expiration  of  the  recovery  period  established  under  Article  85  of  the  Staff 
Regulations. 

Additionally,  the  proactive  notifications  system  in  Sysper  is  being  developed 
according  to  planning  (2016),  to  facilitate  the  management  of  family  allowances 
via notifications sent to concerned staff. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Strengthening  of  the  internal  control  system  (e.g.  through  targeted  training)  has 
further mitigated the risk of weaknesses in staff cost' calculation. 

329. 

(§ 31 - 2014/PAR/0566) The European Parliament calls on the EEAS and EuropeAid 
to  reinforce  supervision  of  the  heads  of  delegation  in  their  capacity  as  authorising 
officers  by  sub-delegation  for  the  Commission  with  a  view  to  increasing  their 
accountability  within  the  global  chain  assurance  by  providing  qualitative  and 
exhaustive reporting (with the so-called External Assistance Management Report) in 
the  context  of  the  establishment  of  the  respective  EEAS  and  EuropeAid  annual 
activity reports. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  External  Assistance  Management  Reports  (EAMR)  form  the  basis  of  the 
accountability  and  reporting  chain in  DG  DEVCO.  The  EAMRs  and  KPI  results 
are  duly  reflected  in  its  Annual  Activity  Reports.  Moreover,  as  from  2014,  the 
EAMRs are transmitted officially by DG DEVCO to the European Parliament. 

330. 

(§ 32 - 2014/PAR/0567) The European Parliament urges the EEAS and EuropeAid to 
ensure that the Union delegations actively address the shortcomings identified in the 
external  assistance  programmes  and  projects  already  during  the  implementation 
phase,  so  that  ongoing  programmes  and  projects  meet  their  objectives  and  avoid 
delays. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission is currently developing actions to address the observed situation 
as regards payments and project implementation and envisages to implement these 
actions by the end of 2017 / beginning of 2018. 

331. 

(§  33  -  2014/PAR/0568)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
strengthen  efforts  and  decrease  outstanding  commitments  (reduce  reste  à  liquider 
(RALs), RACs and RAPs) and shorten the average period of project implementation. 

Commission's response: 

The requested action has been taken. 

The  efforts  made  by  DG  DEVCO  in  order  to  decrease  the  RAL  and  shorten  the 
average period of project implementation have produced results. In two years time 
- between 01/01/2014 and 01/01/2016 - the total amount of RAL has decreased by 
9% from €M21,896 to €M20,032. Similarly, the RAL absorption period (the RAL 
amount  at  the  end  of  the  year  divided  by  the  annual  amount  of  payment  made 
during  the  year)  has  decreased  from  3.7  years  on  31/12/2014  to  3.54  years  on 
31/12/2015. 

332. 

(§  41  -  2014/PAR/0569)  The  European  Parliament  invites  the  EEAS  and  the 
Commission  to  pay  particular  attention  to  procurement  and  human  resources 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
procedures  in  order  to  ensure  that  they  are  responsive  to  the  CSDP's  operational 
needs. 

Commission's response: 

All CSDP Missions benefit from the CFSP-specific procurement flexibility adopted 
by  the  EEAS  (CPCC)  and  the  Commission  (FPI)  last  year.    In  addition,  several 
Missions benefit from very flexible public procurement procedures under the crisis 
regime. This covers the entire procurement cycle until the finalisation of contracts. 
Difficulties linked to the implementation of projects in the missions are not due to 
the EU's procurement procedures. CSDP missions are increasingly being given the 
mandate  to  implement  projects,  and  it  is  important  to  complement  this  with  the 
very specific expertise and resources needed. 

Regarding  human  resources,  the  Council  supports  the  efforts  of  the  EEAS,  in 
cooperation with the Commission services in consultation with Member States, as 
appropriate, to explore ways to enable greater flexibility in the recruitment process 
and ensuring continuity. 

333. 

(§  43  -  2014/PAR/0570)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  EEAS  and  the 
Commission  to  coordinate  CSDP  missions  more  thoroughly  in  advance  with  other 
Union  efforts,  bilateral  missions  and  international  efforts  with  similar  objectives; 
calls in this respect for more cooperation and coordination between the Union and its 
Member States by promoting synergies. 

Commission's response: 

The  EU  is  an  advocate  for  the  comprehensive  approach.  The  first  step  in  the 
current Crisis Management Procedures (2013) for an EU external engagement is 
to develop an overall EU approach - the Political Framework for Crisis Approach 
(PFCA).    In  this  framework  all  EU  instruments  (including  security/CSDP)  have 
been  considered,  as  well  as  efforts  of  other  international  actors  (e.g.  UN)  and 
bilateral efforts by individual EU Member States.  The PFCA could be the starting 
point of a CSDP mission, but it could also focus on diplomatic or economic efforts. 

334. 

(§  46  -  2014/PAR/0571)  The  European  Parliament  urges  the  EEAS  and  the 
Commission  to  implement lessons learnt from the Eulex  case in  close  coordination 
with  Parliament,  jointly  exploring  ways  to  implement  the  recommendations 
contained  in  the  Jacqué  report  commissioned  by  the  High  Representative  of  the 
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and to address any outstanding issues. 

Commission's response: 

As  of  May  2016,  most  of  the  recommendations  have  been  implemented.  The 
remaining  6  recommendations  are    being  processed  within  the  framework  of  the 
new code of conduct and discipline for civilian CSDP missions which is currently 
being discussed with MS. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
European Council and Council 

335. 

(§  12  -  2014/PAR/0572)  The  European  Parliament  states  that  the  annual  reports  of 
the  Union  institutions  and  agencies  could  play  an  important  role  in  compliance 
regarding transparency, accountability and integrity;  calls for  the Union institutions 
and  agencies  to  include  a  standard  chapter  on  these  components  in  their  annual 
reports. 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  is  addressed  to  all  Union  institutions  and  agencies.  As 
regards  the  reporting  requirements  for  decentralised  agencies,  the  Commission 
refers  to  Article  47  of  FFR.  The  new  provisions  streamline  the  reporting 
obligations  by  providing  for  a  consolidated  annual  activity  report  including 
comprehensive information on the implementation of the agency work programme, 
budget, staff policy plan, agencies' management and internal control systems. The 
Commission  has  furthermore  developed  a  template  for  the  Consolidated  Annual 
Activity Report. 

336. 

(§  40  -  2014/PAR/0573)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
amend the Financial Regulation to clarify the objectives of the discharge procedure 
and to clearly define sanctions for not respecting the regulations. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  considers  that  this  cannot  be  dealt  with  in  the  Financial 
Regulation.  It  is  of  the  view  that  in  the  light  of  Article  319  of  the  Treaty  of  the 
functioning of the European Union, all institutions should cooperate to the smooth 
functioning of  the  discharge procedure, and that Parliament  and Council should 
seek a modus vivendi. 

Performance, financial management and control of EU agencies 

337. 

(§ 10 - 2014/PAR/0574) The European Parliament notes from the Network that the 
practical implementation of the framework financial regulation by agencies poses in 
many  cases  challenges  to  efficient  and  simplified  budget  spending,  in  particular  in 
the areas of procurement, multiannual programming, indirect grant management and 
complicated  documentation  for  the  consolidation  package  of  the  accounts;  calls  on 
the Commission and the Network to further explore the possibility of simplifying the 
rules, taking into account the differing needs of the agencies. 

Commission's response: 

The  Commission  is  in  regular  contact  with  the  network  of  agencies  and  takes its 
concerns into  account wherever possible. The Commission will take into  account 
comments  made  by  the  network  also  in  the  context  of  the  proposal  for  the  next 
revision of the Financial Regulation. A new Framework Financial Regulation will 
be  adopted  in  line  with  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  new  Financial  Regulation, 
once the latter has been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
338. 

(§  17  -  2014/PAR/0575)  The  European  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
reconsider  the  introduction  of  fees  for  agencies  for  procurement  procedures  led  by 
the Commission. 

Commission's response: 

The Guidance on the provision of services to other EU Institutions, Agencies and 
Bodies is currently being developed by the Commission and will apply to any kind 
of  provision  of  services  offered  by  the  Commission  departments  to  the  other 
institutions. The document is intended to create the basic conditions which would 
facilitate  a  genuine  collaborative  attitude,  which  is  necessary  to  reap  in  full  the 
promised  benefits  of  inter-institutional  cooperation.  The  methodology  is  designed 
to avoid that the cost recovery results in surpluses either for the Commission or for 
the  other  institutions.  Costs  are  recovered  in  case  they  are  timely  and  effectively 
supported by the Commission, and only if they are significant. The aim is that the 
guidelines will be applicable as of 1st January 2017. 

339. 

(§ 18 - 2014/PAR/0576) The European Parliament calls upon the Commission to run 
a SWOT analysis on the agencies’ mandates and annual work programmes in order 
to come to an informed decision on which Agencies need more staff and which do 
not. 

Commission's response: 

As  part  of  the  preparation  of  the  annual  draft  budgets,  the  Commission  makes  a 
thorough  assessment  of  the  needs  for  each  decentralised  agency.  The  proposed 
level  of  the  EU  contribution  and  the  staffing  level  of  individual  agencies  reflect 
their stage of development. The classification of agencies as ‘cruising speed’, ‘new 
tasks’  and  ‘start-up  phase’  agencies  has  an  impact  on  the  growth  of  their  EU 
contributions  and  staffing  levels:  typically,  agencies  which  have  recently  been 
created or have recently been assigned new tasks require additional appropriations 
and  additional  staff,  to  carry  out  tasks  related  to  their  new  or  recently  extended 
mandates,  whereas  cruising  speed  agencies  have  stable  structures  and  budgets, 
and should therefore pursue rationalisation efforts (even when confronted by new 
policy developments). 

The  annual  draft  budget  requests  for  decentralised  agency  staffing  and 
appropriations  use  as  a  starting  point  the  Commission  Communication  on  the 
programming of human and financial resources for decentralised agencies 2014-
2020  (COM(2013)519,  10.7.2013).  This  is  with  the  aim  of  reducing  total  staffing 
levels  in  agencies  by  5  %  over  five  years,  as  laid  down  in  point  27  of  the 
Interinstitutional  Agreement  of  2  December  2013,  while  still  allowing  certain 
agencies to increase their staffing numbers in order to carry out their new tasks. 

While pursuing the staff reduction target, the Commission has revised the staffing 
outlook of agencies facing particular challenges, notably as part of the migration 
and security response. 

170 

 
 
 
 
340. 

(§ 19 - 2014/PAR/0577) The European Parliament urges the Commission to treat the 
agencies  financed  primarily  by  the  Union  budget  as  a  separate  case  and  to  put 
forward  a  specific  framework  for  agencies  financed  mainly  by  industry,  which 
should be in proportion to the services provided by the agency concerned. 

Commission's response: 

As  agreed  in  the  meeting  of  the  Interinstitutional  Working  Group  (IIWG)  on 
decentralised agencies' resources of 14 March 2016, the European Aviation Safety 
Agency (EASA) will be treated as a pilot case as regards a  certain flexibility in its 
annual number of fee-financed posts to respond to fluctuations in workload from 
industry,  provided  that  this  is  justified  by  workload  indicators.  The  Commission 
to  upward  or  downward 
proposes 
adjustments  of 
the  Commission 
Communication  of  July  2013  are  not  included  in  the  5  %  staff  reduction  target. 
The  merits  of  the  EASA  pilot  case  will  be  discussed  in  detail  in  the  next  IIWG 
meeting, which is scheduled for October 2016. 

the  number  of  posts  as  compared 

that  fluctuations 

in  workload 

leading 

to 

341. 

(§ 29 - 2014/PAR/0578) The European Parliament calls on those Union institutions 
and agencies which have introduced codes of conduct, including Parliament, to step 
up  their  implementation  measures,  such  as  checks  on  declarations  of  financial 
interests. 

Commission's response: 

This  recommendation  is  addressed  to  Union  institutions  and  agencies.  The 
Commission can only accept it as far as the Commission itself is concerned. The 
Commission is committed to the implementation of its code. Each Commissioner is 
responsible for  his/her  declaration of  interests,  which  is  published  and  subject  to 
the constant scrutiny of the public and the European Parliament. 

342. 

(§  38  -  2014/PAR/0579)  The  European  Parliament  asks  the  Union  institutions  and 
bodies to apply strictly the measures pertaining to discretion and exclusion in public 
procurement, with proper background checks being carried out in every instance, and 
to apply the exclusion criteria so as to debar companies in the event of any conflict of 
interest, this being essential to protect the financial interests of the Union. 

Commission's response: 

Conflict  of  interests  of  economic  operators  may  constitute  grave  professional 
misconduct which is a ground of exclusion from EU funds if they are not properly 
managed.  From  2016,  the  Commission  has  set  up  and  operates  a  new  early 
detection and exclusion system of unreliable economic operators. This allows the 
responsible authorising officers of all EU institutions and bodies to exclude  such 
operators on the basis of a preliminary classification in law after referring the case 
to  a  Panel  presided  over  by  a  standing  independent  high-level  Chair  for  central 
assessment. 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
343. 

(§  39  -  2014/PAR/0580)  The  European  Parliament  reminds  the  Court  of  Auditors 
that the Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in paragraph 54 of the 
Common Approach that all aspects of outsourced external audits "remain under the 
full responsibility of the [Court], which manages all administrative and procurement 
procedures  required";  asks  the  Commission  to  confirm  urgently  that  the  Common 
Approach still applies. 

Commission's response: 

The Commission remains committed to implement the Common Approach and has 
done  so  consistently  since  its  approval.  The  co-legislators  adopted  the  Financial 
Regulation,  providing  for  a  verification  of  decentralised  agencies'  annual 
accounts, after committing to the Common Approach endorsed by the EP, Council 
and Commission. However, while the Common Approach mentioned the principle 
that the European Court of Auditors should bear the costs of this external audit of 
agencies' accounts, it was at the strong insistence of the latter that a different text 
was included on this point in the final version of the Financial Regulation adopted 
in 2012. 

The  legislative  authorities  decided  that  the  decentralised  agencies  should  have 
their accounts certified by an external audit company. The Commission intervenes 
only  as  service  provider  in  granting  access  to  the  decentralised  agencies  to  a 
framework contract dedicated to audits and controls; the agencies remaining free 
to  use  to  procure  the  external  services  through  another  channel.  As  a  result,  the 
Commission  bears  also  a  part  of  the  administrative  burden  in  helping  the 
decentralised agencies. 

In carrying out its compulsory audits on the reliability of the accounts and on the 
legality  and  regularity  of  transactions  of  the  decentralised  agencies, the  Court  of 
Auditors  may  draw  assurance  from  the  certification  work  of  the  external  audit 
companies provided that it complies with international audit standards. Therefore, 
the Commission underlines the importance of the guidance that the Court provides 
to private auditors, also with a view to reducing the administrative burden. 

Agencies 

344. 

(FRONTEX - §19 - 2014/PAR/0581) The Parliament urges the Commission, when 
proposing founding regulations in future, to consider the following : 

- notes that, when a Member State deploys officers and/or technical equipment to the 
Agency’s  coordinated  operations,  the  Member  State  signs  the  Operational  Plan 
drafted by the Agency and the host Member State, which clearly indicates the terms 
of the operational cooperation;  

-  recalls  that  no  provision  is  laid  down  granting  participating  Member  States  the 
freedom to use different ways and means to achieve a given policy objective, as the 
grant instrument suggests, because the Operational Plan needs to be implemented in 
the manner agreed upon without deviation unless amended; 

- points out that the new proposal for establishing a Border and Coast Guard1 goes 
even  further  and  that  it  proposes  a  proactive  role  for  joint  operations  and  return 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
activities, which does not go hand in hand with the features of a grant as a financial 
instrument; 

Commission's response: 

On  21  June,  the  Council  and  the  EP  reached  a  political  agreement  on  the  draft 
text  of  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Regulation  which  aims  to 
strengthen  the  mandate  of  the  Frontex  Agency  providing  it  with  the  necessary 
legal  basis  and  resources  to  perform  more  effectively.  As  regards  the  EP's  2014 
discharge opinion and the observation on the use of grants to finance the Agency's 
operations, the text of the agreed EBCG Regulation does not make any reference 
to the kind of instruments to be used but it states that The Agency shall finance or 
co-finance the activities set (…) from its budget in accordance with the financial 
rules applicable to the Agency. This point was discussed in both the Council and 
the European Parliament. The final agreed wording will offer the Agency the fully 
flexibility  for  the  choice  of  financing  instruments  provided  by  the  applicable 
financial rules. 

345. 

(ESMA  -  §27  -  2014/PAR/0582)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission,  in  the 
White  Paper  planned  for  Q2  2016  and  in  a  legislative  proposal  to  be  presented  by 
2017, to launch a different financing arrangement based on a separate budget line in 
the budget of the Union and on the complete replacement of the contributions from 
national authorities by fees paid by market participants. 

("The  Authority's  mixed 
contributions  from  national  competent  authorities, 
burdensome and a potential threat to its independence") 

financing  arrangement,  which 

is 

relies  heavily  on 
inflexible, 

inadequate, 

Commission's response: 

The  European  Parliament's  request  that  the  Commission  launches  a  different 
financing  arrangement  for  the  three  European  Supervisory  Authorities  (EBA, 
EIOPA  and  ESMA)  is  also  reflected  in  President  Juncker's  mission  letter  to 
Commissioner  Jonathan  Hill.  The  Commission  services  are  working  towards 
presenting  a  proposal  for  revised  financing  arrangements  as  part  of  a  broader 
reform  package  for  the  three  European  Supervisory  Authorities.  The  current 
direction regarding the financing arrangements  is  that the  three ESAs should be 
fully funded by industry. 

The intention is to present a targeted reform package in the course of 2017. 

346. 

(ENISA - §11 - 2014/PAR/0583) The Parliament urges the Commission, the Agency 
and the Greek authorities to find a solution in order to reduce significantly the risks 
to  which  the  Agency  is  exposed  (due  to  late  payment  of  the  rent  for  the  offices  in 
Athens by the Greek Authorities to the landlord). 

("The Parliament acknowledges the fact that, as a follow up from the 2013 discharge 
of the Agency, according to the lease agreement between the Greek authorities, the 
Agency  and  the  landlord,  rent  for  the  offices  in  Athens  is  paid  by  the  Greek 
authorities; is concerned about the constant late payment of rent, which continued in 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2014  and  2015  and  which  presents  significant  reputational,  financial  and  business-
continuity risks for the Agency; notes with  concern that in 2015, the payment of the 
instalment for the first six months of the year was made on 27 August 2015 and only 
after the Agency received a warning that litigation would be launched by the landlord 
of the Athens office") 

Commission's response: 

Per agreement by the Greek government, the rent for ENISA's office in Athens is 
paid  by  the  Greek  government,  i.e.  the  Ministry  of  Telecommunications.  The 
current  rental  arrangements  (Greek  Ministerial  decision  n.  46097/5940  of  2013) 
foresee  that  ENISA  each  year  requests  the  funds  to  the  Greek  Government  and 
then pays directly the landlord upon reception of the funding. 

The Commission is aware of the issues that ENISA experienced with the payment 
of  the  rent  for  the  office.  Upon  ENISA's  request,  the  Commission  has  regularly 
intervened by soliciting the Greek Authorities to pay timely the due amounts. The 
Commission is also informed that for 2016 the Greek Government has so far met 
its obligation by paying the due amount for the first six months. 

347. 

(EIOPA  -  §13  -  2014/PAR/0584)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission,  in  the 
White  Paper  planned  for  Q2  2016  and  in  a  legislative  proposal  to  be  presented  by 
2017, to launch a different financing arrangement based on a separate budget line in 
the budget of the Union and on the complete replacement of the contributions from 
national authorities by fees paid by market participants. 

("The Parliament concludes that the Authority's mixed financing arrangement, which 
relies  heavily  on  contributions  from  national  competent  authorities,  is  inadequate, 
inflexible, burdensome and a potential threat to its independence, especially when 60 
% of its budget is financed by the competent national supervisory authorities") 

Commission's response: 

The  European  Parliament's  request  that  the  Commission  launches  a  different 
financing  arrangement  for  the  three  European  Supervisory  Authorities  (EBA, 
EIOPA  and  ESMA)  is  also  reflected  in  President  Juncker's  mission  letter  to 
Commissioner  Jonathan  Hill.  The  Commission  services  are  working  towards 
presenting  a  proposal  for  revised  financing  arrangements  as  part  of  a  broader 
reform  package  for  the  three  European  Supervisory  Authorities.  The  current 
direction regarding the financing  arrangements  is  that the  three ESAs should  be 
fully funded by industry. 

The intention is to present a targeted reform package in the course of 2017. 

348. 

(EFSA  -  §25  -  2014/PAR/0585)  The  Parliament  stresses  that  experts  in  regulatory 
agencies  must  be  paid  for  their  work  so  as  to  enable  their  independence  from  the 
sector they regulate and calls on the Commission to provide the financial means for 
the  Authority  to  pay  external  experts  and  develop  in-house  research  to  ensure 
independence. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission's response: 

In  December  2013  the  Commission  adopted  Guidelines  on  the  prevention  and 
management  of  conflicts  of  interest  in  EU  decentralised  agencies,  which  include 
provisions concerning the publication of declarations of interests for management 
board members, executive directors, experts in scientific committees or other such 
bodies and staff. Remuneration of experts is also an issue to be looked at, within 
the funding currently made available from the EU budget. 

349. 

(EBA  -  §29  -  2014/PAR/0586)  The  Parliament  calls  on  the  Commission,  in  the 
White  Paper  planned  for  Q2  2016  and  in  a  legislative  proposal  to  be  presented  by 
2017, to launch a different financing arrangement based on a separate budget line in 
the budget of the Union and on the complete replacement of the contributions from 
national authorities by fees paid by market participants. 

("The Parliament concludes that the Authority’s mixed financing arrangement, which 
relies  heavily  on  contributions  from  national  competent  authorities,  is  inadequate, 
inflexible, burdensome and a potential threat to its independence") 

Commission's response: 

The  European  Parliament's  request  that  the  Commission  launches  a  different 
financing  arrangement  for  the  three  European  Supervisory  Authorities  (EBA, 
EIOPA  and  ESMA)  is  also  reflected  in  President  Juncker's  mission  letter  to 
Commissioner  Jonathan  Hill.  The  Commission  services  are  working  towards 
presenting  a  proposal  for  revised  financing  arrangements  as  part  of  a  broader 
reform  package  for  the  three  European  Supervisory  Authorities.  The  current 
direction regarding the financing arrangements  is  that the  three ESAs should be 
fully funded by industry. 

The intention is to present a targeted reform package in the course of 2017. 

350. 

(EASA - §23 - 2014/PAR/0587) The Parliament calls on the Commission to take the 
opportunity,  which  arose  this  year,  to  amend  Regulation  (EC)  No  216/2008  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council1  establishing  the  Agency  with  a  view  to 
securing a headquarters agreement, allowing the Agency to operate unimpeded. 

Commission's response: 

On  7  December  2015  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  Regulation  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  common  rules  in  the  field  of  civil 
aviation  and  establishing  a  European  Union  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (COM(2015)613 final. 

In  accordance  with  the  Common  Approach  on  Decentralised  Agencies,  this 
legislative  proposal  includes  a  provision  establishing  that  a  headquarters 
agreement  between  the  Agency  and  the  Member  State  where  the  seat  is  located 
shall be concluded. 

The article reads as follows: 

Article 119 - Headquarters Agreement and operating conditions 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
1. The necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for 
the Agency in the host Member State and the facilities to be made available by that 
Member State together with the specific rules applicable in the host Member State 
to  the  Executive  Director,  members  of  the  Management  Board,  Agency  staff  and 
members  of  their  families  shall  be  laid  down  in  a  Headquarters  Agreement 
between the Agency and Member State where the seat is located, concluded after 
obtaining  the  approval  of  the  Management  Board  and  no  later  than  [OP  Please 
insert the exact date -  two years after entry into force of this Regulation]. 

2.  The  Agency’s  host  Member  State  shall  provide  the  best  possible  conditions  to 
ensure  the  functioning of  the  Agency, including multilingual, European-oriented 
schooling and appropriate transport connections. 

176