Resolution (EU) 2023/1814 of the European Parliament of 10 May 2023 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021, Section I – European Parliament
Date: 2023-05-10
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, budgetary discharge, financial year, general budget (EU)








L_2023242EN.01000301.xml










29.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 242/3








            RESOLUTION (EU) 2023/1814 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 10 May 2023
         
with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021, Section I – European Parliament


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,







—


having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021, Section I – European Parliament,










—


having regard to Rule 100 and Rule 104(3) of, and Annex V to, its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0086/2023),












A.


whereas, in his certification of the final accounts, the European Parliament’s (the ‘Parliament’) accounting officer stated his reasonable assurance that the accounts, in all material aspects, present fairly the financial position, the results of the operations and the cash-flow of Parliament;












B.


whereas, in accordance with the usual procedure, 145 questions were sent to Parliament’s administration and written replies were received and discussed publicly by Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on 1 December 2022, in the presence of the Vice-President responsible for the budget, the Secretary-General, the director of the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (the ‘Authority’) and the internal auditor;












C.


whereas there is always scope for improvement in terms of quality, efficiency and effectiveness in the management of public finances, scrutiny is necessary to ensure that political leadership and Parliament’s administration are held accountable to Union citizens;












D.


whereas trust in Parliament’s integrity and the rule of law is paramount for the functioning of European democracy;












E.


whereas Parliament’s integrity is key to ensure that democratic processes are not influenced by private and external interests and that citizens’ rights are fully respected;












F.


whereas, in its resolution of 16 September 2021, Parliament stated the importance of strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions by setting up an independent Union ethics body;












G.


whereas, in its resolution of 15 December 2022, Parliament stressed suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the Union institutions;








Parliament’s budgetary and financial management









1.


Notes that Parliament’s final appropriations for 2021 totalled EUR 2 063 521 135, or 19,4 % of heading 7 of the Multiannual Financial Framework (1) set aside for the 2021 administrative expenditure of the Union institutions as a whole, representing a 1,2 % increase compared to the 2020 budget (EUR 2 038 745 000);












2.


Notes that total revenue entered in the accounts as of 31 December 2021 was EUR 215 332 108 (compared to EUR 203 449 523 in 2020), including EUR 37 150 961 in assigned revenue (compared to EUR 33 567 305 in 2020);












3.


Emphasises that five chapters accounted for 75,8 % of total commitments: Chapter 1 0 (Members of the institution), Chapter 1 2 (Officials and temporary members of staff), Chapter 2 0 (Buildings and associated costs), Chapter 2 1 (Data processing, equipment and movable property), and Chapter 4 2 (Expenditure relating to parliamentary assistance), indicating a high level of rigidity for a major part of Parliament’s expenditure;












4.


Notes the figures on the basis of which Parliament’s accounts for the financial year 2021 were closed, namely:












(a)



Available appropriations (EUR)









appropriations for 2021:


2 063 521 135 




non-automatic carry-overs from financial year 2020:


74 900 000 




automatic carry-overs from financial year 2020:


356 517 980 




appropriations corresponding to assigned revenue for 2021:


37 150 961 




carry-overs corresponding to assigned revenue from 2020:


39 313 649 




Total:


2 571 403 726 










(b)



Utilisation of appropriations in the financial year 2021 (EUR)









commitments:


2 435 954 496 




payments made:


2 077 518 430 




appropriations carried forward automatically including those arising from assigned revenue:


419 702 461 




appropriations carried forward non-automatically:


22 007 230 




appropriations cancelled:


52 175 603 










(c)



Budgetary receipts (EUR)









received in 2021:


215 332 108 










(d)



Total balance sheet at 31 December 2021 (EUR)







1 720 527 780 
















5.


Points out that 98,5 % of the appropriations entered in Parliament’s budget, amounting to EUR 2 033 160 247, were committed, with a cancellation rate of 0,6 %; notes with satisfaction that, as in previous years, a very high level of budget implementation was achieved; notes that payments totalled EUR 1 649 796, resulting in a payment appropriation execution rate of 81,1 % (EUR 1 590 035 012 and 81,5 % respectively in 2020);












6.


Notes that eighteen transfers were approved by Parliament’s Committee on Budget (‘C transfers’), in accordance with Articles 31 and 49 of the Financial Regulation, in the financial year 2021, amounting to EUR 106 753 497 or 5,2 % of final appropriations; notes that the President in turn authorised eight transfers (‘P transfers’) amounting to EUR 26 464 877 or 1,3 % of the 2021 budget;












7.


Observes the higher level of transfers in 2021 due to budgetary savings resulting from the COVID-19 crisis in comparison to pre-pandemic years, when the total amount of C and P transfers combined reached 5 % in 2019, 3,2 % in 2018 and 4,0 % in 2017; recalls that normal travel activities were only possible during parts of the year, and therefore Parliament’s relevant budget lines were not fully used and were redeployed for other purposes;












8.


Observes that the most underused budget lines, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that provided for budgetary transfers in 2021 were ordinary travel expenses (EUR 20 041 000), expenses for staff missions (EUR 18 460 000), organisation and reception of groups of visitors (EUR 16 517 980) and parliamentary assistance (EUR 11 418 251); observes that the biggest feeder items, i.e. contributing more than EUR 5 000 000, amounted to a total of EUR 79 152 282 in C and P transfers combined;












9.


Notes that the surplus generated by the COVID-19 pandemic was, via C and P budgetary transfers in 2021, mainly allocated to finance Parliament’s building policy, namely ‘lease payments’ which were reinforced with EUR 33 559 035 to continue the investment in the Adenauer II building project while ‘acquisition of immovable property’ was reinforced with EUR 22 007 230, allowing the acquisition of the Trèves II building, which together made up 52,1 % of C transfers in 2021; notes that other important transfers addressed unanticipated needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g. health and prevention measures, technical equipment and expenditure on interpretation to support teleworking and hybrid meetings; notes that further transfers were related to the Conference on the Future of Europe and to investments in various aspects of IT services;





The Court of Auditors’ opinions on the reliability of the 2021 accounts and on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying those accounts









10.


Recalls that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) performs a specific assessment of administrative expenditure as a single policy group for all Union institutions; highlights that administrative expenditure includes expenditure on human resources (salaries, allowances and pensions), accounting for 68 % of the total, and on other categories, such as buildings, equipment, energy, communications and information technology;












11.


Notes that the Multiannual Financial Framework heading 7 ‘European public administration’ accounted for EUR 10,7 billion or 5,9 % of the Union budget in 2021, of which Parliament accounted for EUR 2,1 billion or 19,4 %; notes that the Court examined a sample of 60 transactions of this Multiannual Financial Framework heading and found that 15 contained errors (25 %), out of which the Court has quantified 5 errors and estimated, on that basis, that the level of error of the Union’s spending on administration in 2021 is below the materiality threshold; reiterates its recommendation to the Court to widen its sample of transactions examined in order to determine the origin of the high share of transactions which contain errors, although below the materiality threshold;












12.


Notes that the Court’s annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2021 presents specific findings on Parliament, namely errors in two payments: (i) a minor over-payment for IT services caused by an incorrect application of contract terms; and (ii) one payment by Parliament to one of its political groups; is concerned that the internal procurement rules adopted by the Bureau and Parliament’s guidelines on their application allow the use of negotiated procurement procedures for high-value contracts, whereas the Financial Regulation stipulates the use of open or restricted procurement procedures; notes furthermore, the Court’s finding that the political group failed to fully abide by those internal rules, due to, according to the group concerned, the difficulty in finding tenderer that can fulfil the very specific criteria used to award the contract; highlights that the Court has previously reported shortcomings in transactions relating to procurement by political groups;












13.


Observes that the position of Parliament’s administration is that the use of negotiated procurement procedures for high-value contracts, i.e. contracts awarded in procedures with a value reaching the thresholds referred to in Article 175(1) of the Financial Regulation, only apply to direct management, while political groups manage the funds allocated to them according to the principles of indirect management in analogical application of Article 62(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation; welcomes, however, that Parliament accepted the Court’s recommendation to revise its guidelines on the application of the rules on public procurement by the political groups to better align them with the Financial Regulation; suggests Parliament’s administration to take into account the technical specificity of some procurement procedures for which only a limited number of tenderers with high expertise is able to reply; calls on the Secretary-General to report back to the Committee on Budgetary Control when such revision is to be carried out; notes the commitment of Parliament’s administration to continue to support the political groups for the appropriations to be used in accordance with the applicable rules;












14.


Notes that, in particular, the Court further examined a payment of EUR 74,9 million related to the purchase of the Scholl building on Rue Wiertz, the purchase of which was financed from funds that were not used during the COVID-19 crisis and were carried over from 2020; notes that, when seeking offers, Parliament used award criteria that weighted 50 % of points for both price and quality of the proposed building; notes that Parliament received two offers and awarded the contract to the tenderer proposing the Scholl building, significantly closer to Parliament’s main site but 30 % more expensive per square metre than the building proposed by the other tenderer; notes that the Court considered that ‘Parliament’s award criteria significantly reduced the importance of price as a basis for the purchase decision, making it unlikely that any other offer could have been accepted’; stresses the importance in guaranteeing a level playing field to all tenderers in order to give the assurance that procurement is regular, and to avoid potential reputational risk; observes that the purchase of the Scholl building allows Parliament to strengthen the security of its central complex, to maintain a direct connection to other Parliament buildings, and to preserve the investments made so far in that building;












15.


Notes the response given by Parliament to the Court’s observation that the distance criterion played a major role in the quality criteria (namely a weighting factor of 20/50 quality points), and the possibility of interconnection with the central buildings received an additional weighting factor (4/50 quality points), which led Parliament to consider the Scholl building on Rue Wiertz as the most economically advantageous offer despite the substantial price difference; notes that the Bureau analysed the acquisition of the Scholl building against the termination of the usufruct contract and, in that sense, considered that a significant financial amount would be saved, namely the remaining contractual payments (EUR 24 000 000) and the investments already done by Parliament (EUR 15 300 000);





The internal auditor’s annual report









16.


Notes that, at the meeting between the committee responsible and the internal auditor held on 1 December 2022, the internal auditor presented his annual report and described the assurance audits and consulting services he performed, and reported on the outcome of the current state-of-play, which in 2021 covered the following topics:






—


audit of the parliamentary assistance allowance (Directorate-General for Finance (DG FINS));










—


preparation of the second phase audit of the financing of European political parties and European political foundations (DG FINS);










—


consulting assignment on the establishment of foundations for data governance framework (Directorate-General for Innovation and Technological Support (DG ITEC));










—


audit of staff missions (Directorate-General for Personnel (DG PERS));










—


audit of the procurement process in (Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics (DG INLO));










—


review of Parliament’s risk management framework;










—


follow-up of open actions from internal audit reports – phases 1 and 2 of 2021;
















17.


Welcomes and supports the following actions that the internal auditor has agreed with the directorates-general responsible, as a result of the assurance assignments:






—


with regard to the audit of the parliamentary assistance allowance, addressing the issue concerning respect for the ceilings set by the Implementing Measures of the Members’ Statute (IMMS) with regard to paying agent’s fees; reducing delays in the paying agent’s submission of statements of accounts for the amounts paid by Parliament to them and in DG FINS’s completing the related controls thereon, and regularising the recurrent build-up of backlogs; clarifying certain provisions of the IMMS and the associated internal guidance that do not consistently support efficient and effective management of the parliamentary assistance spent on local parliamentary assistants;










—


with regard to the second phase of the audit of financing of European political parties and European political foundations, welcoming the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding, in early January 2022, by Parliament’s internal auditor and the Authority, setting out the modalities for the auditing activities that the internal auditor may choose to conduct, as part of his audits covering the implementation of Parliament’s budget, on the management and control systems the Authority applies to the processes of registering, controlling and, where necessary, imposing sanctions on European Political Parties and Foundations;










—


with regard to the consulting assignment on data governance framework, the objective of which was to support DG ITEC in their efforts to develop capabilities that enable Parliament to ensure that high quality data exists throughout the complete lifecycle of the data, the six specific recommendations put forward addressing the inclusion of data-related projects in Parliament’s portfolio for the 2022–2024 period, establishment of an institutional data inventory, creation of local data correspondents, designation of an inter-DG body for data-related decisions, oversight by a body, and examination of possible synergies with existing data-related policies and other compliance requirements;
















18.


Takes note of the assurance assignments just completed, and which are currently following the communication process foreseen by the Charter of the Internal Auditor;






—


concerning the audit of staff missions, the focus on the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the internal management and control systems in the field of missions of all categories of staff including accredited parliamentary assistants (APAs), and on the compliance of the operation of those systems with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, the related internal regulatory framework and the Financial Regulation;










—


with regard to the audit of the procurement process in DG INLO, the focus on the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the internal management and control systems in the field of procurement, on the compliance of the procurement procedures with the applicable legislation and the relevant internal regulatory framework, and on the reliability of management information and recording;










—


with regard to the review of Parliament’s risk management framework, the focus on reviewing the maturity of that framework, which resulted in an assessment of the current state-of-play and the identification of ways forward to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness;
















19.


Notes that the 2021 follow-up process resulted in the closure of 47 of the 99 open actions and for which the agreed due dates for implementation had expired; stresses the fact that some of the 52 remaining actions were recommended several years ago but remain unimplemented and highlights that 23 of them address significant risk; expects the different directorates-general to ensure that the remaining actions are closed without further delay and that the agreed actions will be implemented in accordance with the due dates set in the internal auditor’s annual report; calls on the Secretary-General to report to the discharge authority twice per year on the status of the remaining actions;












20.


Acknowledges that, in accordance with Article 118(9) of the Financial Regulation, ‘the reports and findings of the internal auditor, as well as the report of the Union institution concerned, shall be accessible to the public after validation by the internal auditor of the action taken for their implementation’; notes that in practice the reports and findings are only accessible once all recommendations have been implemented, which means a de facto delay of several years in accessing them, and that Members, on a need-to-know basis, may only have access in accordance with the Bureau’s rules for access to confidential documents; calls on the Bureau to make sure that Members have immediate and full access to the internal audit report at least in view of the discharge procedure in a more expedited way; further calls on the Bureau to make each internal audit report available to the public one year after its finalisation, once the internal auditor has validated the actions taken to implement the previous year’s recommendation; recalls further that a validation of recommendations does not require the full implementation of all of the recommendations; calls on the Secretary-General to report as often as necessary to the Committee on Budgetary Control on the annual audit activities carried out;












21.


Notes the change of the head of the Internal Audit Service as of 1 March 2021; is concerned that the renewal of around half of the audit team and the total of 16 months of vacancies beyond what was planned due to difficulties in identifying suitable candidates despite the continuous support from Parliament’s administration had a negative impact on the audit activity, especially on the IT domain; welcomes the measures taken by the internal auditor to fill the remaining position of specialised information systems auditor with a candidate with a strong relevant background and the measures taken in the meantime in terms of capacity building and additional specialised training; reminds Parliament’s administration of the importance of planning for vacancies with sufficient lead time in essential services such as the internal audit unit;












22.


Welcomes the fact that in 2021 an external assessor certified the Internal Audit Service ‘generally conforms with the Institute of Internal Auditors Standards and Code of Ethics’ which corresponds to the highest level of conformity with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, as was the case in 2016;





Follow-up by Parliament’s administration and the Bureau to the previous discharge resolution









23.


Takes note of the written answers to the 2020 discharge resolution provided to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on 26 September 2022, and of the Secretary-General’s presentation on 25 October 2022 addressing the various questions and requests raised in Parliament’s resolution, followed by the exchange of views with Members;












24.


Recalls that the composition of the Bureau is the President of the European Parliament, the 14 Vice-Presidents and the five Quaestors (non-voting members) democratically elected by Parliament; recalls that once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should be discussed and voted on by the Bureau, pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 262 of the Financial Regulation; regrets that a substantial number of concrete demands adopted by Plenary in discharge resolutions are not always well reflected in the discussions during meetings of the Bureau despite the fact that both Bureau members and the Secretary-General are aware of the discharge resolutions and have the capacity to submit proposals under the aforementioned Rule 25; recalls that the exercise of democratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodies; highlights that for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, the deliberations of the Bureau had to focus, to a large extent, on protecting the integrity of Members and staff, while ensuring business continuity;












25.


Recalls, in light of Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure, that the Bureau is responsible for taking decisions on financial, organisational and administrative matters concerning Parliament’s internal organisation and Members; is concerned that the decisions of the Bureau often fail to respect the will expressed by the Plenary in discharge resolutions; reiterates the importance of the discharge procedure as set out in the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure and demands that resolutions affecting the functioning of Parliament be thoroughly taken into consideration and followed up in a legitimate and transparent manner; notes that the agendas and minutes of the meetings of the Bureau and decisions are published on Parliament’s internet site; reiterates its call on the Secretary-General to make a concrete set of proposals to further improve the transparency of the Bureau’s decision-making; recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau;












26.


Welcomes the proposal from the Secretary-General to enable the Bureau to debate draft decisions on important matters and decide on those at its following meeting; invites the Bureau and Quaestors to implement that practice;





Measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic









27.


Notes that 2021 was marked by the ongoing challenges that arose from the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring most of the unprecedented and extraordinary measures introduced in 2020 to be maintained, and where necessary, adapted in order to minimise the risk for Members and staff, while ensuring that Parliament remained in a position to continue its core activities; notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to have generated an overall budgetary surplus of EUR 95 804 765 and, at the same time, made it necessary to reinforce other budget lines by a total of EUR 26 230 480, which resulted in a net saving of EUR 69 574 285;












28.


Notes, in particular, that teleworking regimes, remote voting and hybrid meetings continued to be applied on a large scale throughout 2021; notes that the obligation for the majority of staff, including APAs, to telework 100 % was gradually lifted as of June 2021 and that on 16 July 2021 the Secretary-General decided to extend the scope of the existing teleworking; notes that, in September 2021, some of the restrictions on Parliament’s activities were lifted, e.g. on delegations or the reception of individual visitors, and that new teleworking rules for Parliament’s staff entered into force;












29.


Welcomes the Court’s conclusions in its Special Report 18/2022 on ‘EU institutions and COVID-19’ that the institutions audited, including Parliament, demonstrated their resilience in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and that their response was rapid and flexible and benefited from previous investments in digitalisation; highlights the Court’s recommendations, in particular the review of business continuity plans and the assessment of the suitability of new ways of working in the post-COVID-19 environment;












30.


Notes that the impact of the continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 led to substantial transfers within Parliament’s budget, and that a budgetary surplus became available in areas such as travel expenses, organisation and reception of groups of visitors, the operation of Parliament visitors’ centres, in-person training, and lower energy consumption; notes that, at the same time, the pandemic created additional budgetary needs in other areas, notably health and prevention, as well as technical equipment and logistics for multilingual hybrid meetings and votes; observes that a substantial part of the savings of the last few years were transferred to building policy;












31.


Highlights that year 2021 was impacted enormously by the COVID-19 pandemic and most of the extraordinary measures introduced in 2020 were required to be maintained and adapted; is concerned that in certain cases, some of the measures that were introduced to prevent the further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in modified working conditions in specific services, such as copy shops and printing units within Parliament, which had a negative impact on some members of staff, for example the staff at the copy shop in Brussels were required to work in isolation for a long period of time even after the safety measures were lifted; asks Parliament’s administration to proactively re-evaluate working conditions in possible similar situations;












32.


Highlights that, in 2021, numerous challenges were imposed on Parliament’s work, the main one being the uncertainty as regards the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic; commends the key role of Parliament’s medical services at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response and acknowledges the enormous workload involved, which included treatment, testing and vaccination of staff, providing psychological support and advising on mitigation measures; notes that exceptionally, the annual medical check-up of staff had to be cancelled and staff were invited to undergo their annual medical check-up externally, under the same conditions as those usually offered by Parliament, in accordance with Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations, and welcomes the fact that the progression of the pandemic situation has made it possible to resume the annual medical check-ups of staff; welcomes the creation, in October 2021, of the Medical Preparedness and Crisis Management Unit (MPCMU) made up of staff from the medical services in Brussels and Luxembourg with the objective of enhancing Parliament’s response capacity for future crises;












33.


Notes that the total cost of the testing centres was EUR 5 415 789 in Brussels, EUR 302 288 in Luxembourg and EUR 39 370 in Strasbourg; welcomes the fact that the public health authorities provided the vaccines and all other material free of charge for Parliament’s vaccination campaign; notes that the total cost of the vaccination centre in Brussels in 2021 was EUR 230 502, including a reinforcement by six interim nurses and the adaptation of an existing IT tool for the administrative aspects (EUR 45 655 and EUR 184 847 respectively); commends the work of the medical service, the staff of the contracted laboratory and the volunteers in Parliament’s tests and vaccination centres in Brussels; notes that, in both Strasbourg and Luxembourg, the vaccination campaigns were organised by the national authorities, and thus no cost was incurred by Parliament;












34.


Recalls that Article 4 of the President’s decision of 1 June 2021 on security measures to limit the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic provided for temperature checks on any person entering Parliament’s buildings; notes that, for that purpose, Parliament purchased different models of body temperature detectors for a total amount of EUR 595 459 (EUR 382 515 in 2020 and EUR 212 944 in 2021); observes that 40 temperature detection units purchased in 2021 as part of the equipment and installed in the metal detectors were not used as of the 14 March 2022 and 4 cameras are now kept in storage; highlights that during the summer it was often the case that persons were denied access because of the high temperature outside, which had nothing to do with high fever; recalls that no provision was introduced to prevent people who had been denied entry from simply trying again moments later; notes that Parliament did not treat nor collect any sensitive data under Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2); observes that, without the need to store any sensitive data, there is no information on the number of persons that were denied access to Parliament’s premises during the period of validity of the measure; regrets the conclusion that it is thus not possible to assess the effectiveness of the body temperature checks or the purchase of the equipment; recalls the principle that provides that any use of public money should always allow for a check on the regularity of the spending and the effectiveness of its use;












35.


Notes that a reduction in cleaning staff was not necessary in Brussels as the buildings remained open and that in Strasbourg and Luxembourg the increase in cleaning needs compensated for the decrease in activity and thus, no losses were incurred by the cleaning providers over the year; notes that at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, the two cleaning contractors in Brussels launched a satisfaction survey among their employees as requested in the 2020 discharge resolution; notes that the employees completed the questionnaire anonymously and that the answers were received and stored on a secured platform; underlines that for the first contractor, the analysis of the results shows that over 90 % of the staff are motivated to perform well, receive a good direction from their management and feel part of a well united team; notes that, as of 9 November 2022, all cleaning services in Parliament’s premises in Brussels are provided by two new service providers; welcomes the fact that the new contractor is subject to stricter obligations ensuring fair working conditions; recalls the fact that the new contractor has committed to taking over all employees who that were employed by the former contractor for at least nine months and requests Parliament to ensure that that commitment is adhered to;












36.


Recalls the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Parliament’s catering staff; welcomes the solidarity measures implemented from April 2020 to December 2021, namely the provision of ‘charity meals’ and a business continuity fee in the three places of work, that at least helped to safeguard 37 catering staff jobs; commends that Parliament was the first Union institution to launch a food donation programme, and that during the COVID-19 crisis, it was the only institution to take action to save employment; welcomes the fact that 20 new jobs have been created since the restart of all catering activities in March 2022; notes that catering and cleaning services are carried out by external service providers due to their specific nature which does not meet the conditions for internalisation; stresses that the internalisation of essential services such as catering and cleaning would require massive recruitment of employees and lead to a significant increase in costs; is, therefore, of the opinion that the internalisation of these services should not be considered by governing bodies;





Interpreters









37.


Recalls that under Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, Members have the right to speak in the official language of their choice, a reflection of the European cultural and linguistic diversity that also makes the Union institutions more accessible and transparent for all citizens of the Union; welcomes the work done by Parliament’s officials and freelance interpreters during the pandemic making this right possible and keeping Parliament functioning as the home of European democracy; stresses that the quality of the interpretation provided has a direct impact on the message conveyed to the citizens of the Union;












38.


Notes that Parliament’s administration introduced safeguards such as a limitation on the weekly interpreting hours due to the additional effort required to interpret remote speakers and that interpreters were for a long period of time outside the meeting room (i.e. coupled rooms, hubs in Member States, etc.); welcomes the fact that several actions approved by the Bureau in 2020 and 2021, ranging from reinforcing the technical infrastructure to remote interpretation, allowed interpretation capacities to gradually increase to 70 % of the pre-COVID-19 capacity from November 2020 to April 2021, and to 90 % in January 2022;












39.


Is concerned about the reported hearing problems that resulted from remote interpreting for long periods of time with low quality sound systems; is alarmed that 63,5 % of respondents (127 out of 200) reported hearing problems in a survey on remote simultaneous interpreting conducted by the Staff Interpreters’ delegation at the beginning of 2021 and 54 % of respondents (702 out of 1 602) mentioned in a survey conducted among staff and freelance interpreters in May 2022 that working under the conditions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on their health and well-being; highlights the fact that the health issues reported by interpreters are being followed up by Parliament’s medical services and the fact that the administration has deployed targeted actions to improve sound quality; recalls the duty of care owed by the Union institutions to their employees, which must be taken into account when implementing preventive measures;












40.


Notes the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 2 June 2022 allowing exceptions for remote interventions in committee meetings and observes that technical set-up and compliance of remote interventions are the main challenges that need to be overcome to achieve good quality sound in Parliament’s hybrid meetings; welcomes the fact that, among other measures and awareness-raising campaigns, over 1 700 professional high quality microphones and 1 342 headsets were distributed to Members, as well as that Quaestors issued notices 50/2020 and 12/2021 with guidelines for remote speakers; observes that Parliament’s administration is also offering, on a pilot basis, high quality microphones to external speakers who will be intervening remotely, such as petitioners; regrets that the efforts and budget allocated will be redundant if remote interventions by Members and other speakers without the appropriate equipment continue to be permitted; welcomes the campaign to raise awareness of the importance of sound quality for remote interventions and calls for further technical checks before each intervention;












41.


Notes that the services of the Interactio platform were acquired in 2021 via an available framework contract that currently does not refer to the ISO standard on conference interpreting; notes that the Secretary-General states in his written replies to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control that the Interactio platform fulfils the ISO sound quality requirements;












42.


Observes that Parliament’s interpreters held a strike from June to October 2022 with the aim of improving working conditions, primarily better sound quality and a limitation on the number and duration of interpreting hours of remote speakers as done during the COVID-19 pandemic; regrets that, during the interpreters’ strike, Parliament’s administration resorted to external interpreting services, at a total cost of EUR 47 324, as this decision jeopardised Parliament’s quality standard for interpretation, and more importantly obstructed workers’ right to strike; stresses that external remote interpretation services should generally not be provided at core meetings of parliamentary bodies; welcomes the interim working arrangements for meetings with remote participation agreed between the trade union, interpreters’ representatives and Parliament’s administration on 17 October 2022 and notes that negotiations on interpreters’ working conditions will be conducted to reflect on Parliament’s post-pandemic working methods; stresses that DG LINC should plan its future interpretation capacity needs and look towards recruiting new interpreters in a timely manner;





Staff, accredited parliamentary assistants (APAs) and local assistants, trainees


Staff









43.


Notes that 877 out of 6 621 posts (13,2 %) were vacant at the end of 2021; acknowledges the general difficulties encountered by the Union institutions, including Parliament, in attracting and retaining talent, which has an impact on the diversity and geographical distribution of the workforce; notes that, in 2021, two surveys were run by DG PERS to find out the main reasons for applying for a job in Parliament and that the results pointed to salaries, but also job significance and flexible working conditions; notes the opinion of Parliament’s administration on the slowness of the competitions conducted by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) but recalls the current transformation process aiming to shorten the duration of competitions, to make them more efficient and to better target specialist profiles while keeping objectivity and equality of treatment at the core of the process; notes that, in 2021, Parliament started running internal competitions and is concerned about fast-track recruitment procedures that may lead to discrimination between professional categories;












44.


Calls for a deep reflection on the new ways of working that can reconcile the needs of Parliament’s administration (including team cohesion, internal communication, and on-boarding of newcomers), taking into account the expectations and satisfaction of its staff, which would positively impact their performance as well as the attractiveness of Parliament as an employer; highlights in this context the importance of a genuine social dialogue with the staff representatives on crucial points like a flexible work environment, health and welfare and training and career opportunities; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these new forms of work; observes that physical presence is of importance for the efficient interaction of all actors in parliamentary processes; suggests that a joint committee be established that assists DG PERS in monitoring the effective implementation and compliance of clear guidelines on teleworking and the right to disconnect that can be adapted to the needs of the different services; stresses that, in view of having uniform rules stemming from the Staff Regulations, Parliament should align teleworking rules with other Union institutions that have introduced the possibility of teleworking outside of the three working places, which would also increase Parliament’s attractiveness as employer;












45.


Recalls the seriously inadequate staffing levels in Parliament’s committee secretariats at the end of 2020 due, inter alia, to the increased workload, the working methods applied as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the creation of new temporary committees; welcomes the fact that further to the adoption of the 2022 budget, 66 new organigram posts (12 for the Directorate-General for External Policies (DG EXPO) and 54 posts for the Directorate-General for Internal Policies (DG IPOL)), were created in the establishment plan with a view to swiftly reinforcing support to parliamentary committees; is concerned that, currently, the net increase of staff (including organigram posts and contract agents) is planned to only include 8 additional members of staff, even though the number of contractual agents has decreased by 23 between January and November 2022; reminds the Secretary-General of the commitment to an actual reinforcement of the human resources capacity in DG EXPO and DG IPOL, including an adequate level of contract agents; points out that all available resources in committees, policy departments, horizontal and support services should be assigned to the implementation of Parliament’s legislative, budgetary and control powers and procedures; calls therefore for the available resources to be distributed according to the committees’ level of activity in these areas and not only to the number of legislative reports;












46.


Is concerned about the Bureau decision of 21 November 2022, based on the Secretary-General’s proposal on General Implementing Provisions, giving effect to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations; insists on the importance of achieving a fair geographical balance among Parliament’s staff provided that the measures are ‘appropriate’, as required by Article 27, and stresses that competitions must respect fundamental principles enshrined in the Staff Regulations and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, such as the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality; recalls furthermore that Article 27 states that ‘those appropriate measures must be justified and shall never result in recruitment criteria other than those based on merit’; calls for an immediate referral of the General Implementing Provisions to Parliament’s legal service for a compliance assessment;












47.


Notes the ‘Contract Agent Strategy II project’ aimed to support directorates-general in assessing whether to internalise functions carried out by external service providers would be more advantageous to Parliament; notes that DG PERS provided support to launch internalisation procedures to DG INLO, DG ITEC and to the Directorate-General for Security and Safety (DG SAFE); reiterates that the recruitment of contractual agents is an acceptable measure when justified, but insists that core tasks should be performed by permanent staff;












48.


Observes particular difficulties in finding candidates willing to work for Parliament in Luxembourg, mainly due to the high cost of living and the increasing price of housing while availing of a salary that is adapted to living conditions in Brussels; asks Parliament’s administration to forward a request to the Commission to address the long-standing and serious problem of salary indexation in Luxembourg by adopting a delegated act to correct the relevant provision of the Staff Regulations;












49.


Notes the importance of knowledge management systems to avoid the loss of know-how in Parliament’s administration; recognises that mobility could help members of staff gain new skills but also believes that Parliament’s administration should motivate and accompany members of staff to move voluntarily between different services so that the mandatory mobility scheme is the last resort, as in some cases this obligation can lead members of staff to leave Parliament; points out that a mandatory mobility policy might be particularly challenging for members of staff working in DG IPOL due to the specific expertise gathered; calls for a complete overhaul of the mobility policy taking into account the views and experience of staff representatives;












50.


Recalls that the Bureau approved on 13 January 2020 new and more ambitious targets for gender balance at senior and middle management levels of Parliament’s administration to be achieved by 2024, meaning that females should occupy 50 % of heads of unit posts, 50 % of director posts and 40 % director-general posts; recalls that a gender action plan for the years 2021–2022 aimed to facilitate the implementation of those targets, as well as to comprehensively mainstream gender into all of Parliament’s activities, was subsequently developed and approved by the Bureau on 6 July 2020; welcomes the fact that 42,7 % of heads of unit and 50 % of directors are women, while women occupying director-general positions have increased from 15,4 % to 28 % since 2021; notes that, in 2021, Parliament recruited 536 women (50,3 %) and 530 men (49,7 %) across all categories of staff combined; notes the difficulties in achieving a satisfactory gender balance in some specific services, such as DG SAFE with 81 % men and 19 % women; asks the administration for an assessment of the 2021–2022 roadmap based on the selected progress monitoring indicators in the context of the forthcoming discharge;












51.


Welcomes the diversity roadmap adopted by the Bureau in November 2021 which sets targets in the area of equal opportunities, such as the consolidation of the role and mandate of the Access and Inclusion Group to enhance coordination and cooperation in the preparation and implementation of Parliament’s disability policies and delivery of concrete proposals; welcomes the fact that Parliament is the first institution to organise selection procedures (Positive Actions) for trainees and contract agents with a disability;












52.


Recalls that, according to Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, the Staff Committee represents the interests of the staff vis-à-vis their institution and maintains continuous contact with them; points out that decisions taken by Parliament’s governing bodies often have a significant impact on staff and thus, reiterates that it is essential for staff representatives to be heard when general matters affecting Parliament’s staff policy are discussed;












53.


Recalls Parliament’s recommendation to the Commission in its resolution of 18 April 2018‘to review its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected within a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities, thereby also setting an example for the other European institutions’; recalls that the appointment procedure of the Secretary-General was a transparent process, where candidates were treated in a fair and equitable manner whilst complying with all necessary eligibility requirements; highlights that the decision made on the selection of the successful candidate was carried out with a large majority of the Bureau;





Accredited Parliamentary Assistants (APAs)









54.


Reiterates its opinion that the particular working relationship between Members and APAs can encompass a situation where both parties decide to terminate the contract by mutual agreement earlier than anticipated but without loss of trust; urges the Bureau to consult with Parliament’s legal service and DG PERS on the feasibility of the contract to be terminated by mutual agreement before its expiry date and to inform the Committee on Budgetary Control of the outcome;












55.


Reiterates that APAs accompanying Members to the part-sessions in Strasbourg should be issued a mission order and be reimbursed in accordance with the applicable rules;












56.


Reiterates its demand for APAs to receive the same subsistence allowance as officials and other statutory staff for their missions to attend the part-sessions in Strasbourg, taking into consideration that the parliamentary allowance envelope remains unchanged; is of the opinion that the current situation, aggravated by the accumulated increase in prices over the last few years, puts APAs in a more difficult financial situation given that they have to travel to Strasbourg to carry out their work in exactly the same way as Parliament’s officials and other statutory staff; fails to understand this unequal treatment regarding the missions to Strasbourg in view of the fact that expenses incurred by APAs undertaking missions outside Parliament’s three places of work are reimbursed, mutatis mutandis, in accordance with the rules applicable to officials’ missions; highlights that aligning the daily subsistence allowance with that of statutory staff would also put an end to the unjustified existence of three different amounts of allowances to choose from; reiterates, therefore, its request to the Bureau to modify its decision of 2 October 2017 with the aim of implementing such alignment;












57.


Notes that the applicable rules adopted by the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents currently prohibit APAs to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and committee missions; points out that the technical support that APAs provide during missions is of key importance to the participating Members; is concerned that this situation in practice leads to Members financing APAs’ travel with the general expenditure allowance (GEA) and obliges APAs to use their annual leave; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to change the current rules to allow APAs, under certain conditions, yet to be determined and bearing in mind the logistical limits of missions, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, as reiterated by several discharge resolutions;












58.


Welcomes the fact that the Bureau’s last revision of the rules for visitors’ groups introduced the possibility for Members to designate professionals to hold the financial responsibility, which has brought about a decrease of 28 % in the number of APAs acting as heads of visitors’ groups; insists, therefore, to the Bureau that APAs not be designated heads of groups as this level of financial responsibility might compromise the appropriate auditing procedures or alternatively calls for a separation of the roles of head of group and the person holding financial responsibility, leaving only a member of the sponsored group or a professional, such as paying agents or travel agencies, to take up the financial responsibility;












59.


Recalls that Members may offer a traineeship to nationals of third countries, provided that they ensure that trainees comply with visa requirements of the country of designation; notes that third-country workers coming to Belgium for a traineeship in Brussels that lasts longer than 90 days, must apply for a prior authorisation from the competent regional public service, i.e. Brussels Economy and Employment; is alarmed that Parliament’s competent service agreed with the latter that the relevant Member’s office would submit the candidate’s dossier, which in practice means that an APA from the Member’s office is required to provide their own personal data to the public authorities in order to act as a contact point for the public authorities in relation to the third country trainee’s visa application; recalls that Parliament cannot put the APAs in a situation that could be detrimental to their rights as statutory personnel and calls on Parliament’s administration to find a different solution that will not endanger the privacy and legal security of the APAs or be a risk to the security of Parliament;












60.


Calls on Parliament’s administration to schedule training courses for APAs according to their workload, which is directly linked to the parliamentary calendar and the general presence of Members in Parliament, in order to reconcile the performance of their duties with the professional training to which they are entitled under Article 11 of the implementing measures of Title VII of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;





Trainees









61.


Notes the Schuman recruitment and development programme was launched for the first time by Parliament’s administration during the March 2021 traineeship period; regrets that Parliament’s administration failed to consult the Staff Committee on this initiative at an early stage and notes the negative opinion expressed in its resolution of 18 October 2021, which calls into question the objectivity and fairness of this programme; is aware of the difficulties encountered by Parliament’s administration in recruiting and retaining talent for the institution, in particular young professionals; insists on recruitment that is based on the essential principles of transparency, objectivity and fairness of the Union’s public service; stresses that recruitment procedures must be merit-based, competitive, fair and transparent, and calls on the Secretary-General to involve both the Staff Committee and the APAs Committee in a revision of this programme to find an agreement on the model to follow in the future;












62.


Notes that the reduction for trainees in Parliament’s canteens, amounting to EUR 1 is based on previous discounts which are in turn based on the contracts signed and the prices at the time; believes that this reduction is at the moment purely symbolic and insufficient and calls, therefore, on Parliament’s administration to consider whether an automatic update on the basis of the food price variations could be introduced;





Transparency and ethics









63.


Stresses that transparency, accountability and integrity are essential ethics principles within the Union institutions and particularly Parliament as the house of European democracy; recalls that weak ethics rules and a lack of enforcement thereof have the potential to compromise the integrity of the institution and that unethical behaviour must be prevented, persecuted and condemned given that it significantly damages the credibility and legitimacy of Parliament and the Union as a whole and constitutes a serious threat to democracy and public trust; recalls Parliament’s resolution of 15 December 2022 on suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the Union institutions; recalls both the Court of Auditors’ conclusions and recommendations in its Special Report 13/2019 on the ethical frameworks of Union institutions, and Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions calling for the creation of an independent and interinstitutional ethics body with a preventive, compliance and advisory role; urges the Commission to finalise and submit its proposal establishing that role; recalls the necessity to have such a Union Ethics body set up by the end of the current term;












64.


Highlights the need to reinforce trust in Union decision-making by strengthening transparency, ethics and good conduct in Parliament; calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework by integrating lessons learned, ensuring full implementation and strengthening the current control rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to effectively address current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitute a profound attack on democracy and must be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls, in particular, for a revision of the Rules of Procedure and the Members’ Code of Conduct, as well as for an urgent upgrade and reform of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members with participation of independent experts, selected on the basis of their competence, experience, independence and professional qualities, in order to make it more visible and prominent, to consolidate its role and to strengthen its powers in order to ensure that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts; recommends anti-corruption and transparency training for Members, APAs and members of staff;












65.


Highlights in this regard the need for stricter rules, enhanced transparency, and monitoring on side-income of Members in order to avoid conflicts of interest; requests to revise the Code of Conduct to take into consideration this particular concern;












66.


Highlights the recent breaches of transparency and corruption in connection with the NGOs Fight Impunity and No Peace Without Justice and regrets that the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) organised a two-day conference in June 2022 together with those organisations, despite the fact they were not registered in the Transparency Register;












67.


Recalls that according to Parliament’s Rules on Public Hearings adopted by the Bureau (3), interest representatives may only be invited as speakers at Parliament’s events, including committee meetings, if they are registered in the Transparency Register and that the secretariat of the committee or Parliament’s governing body organising a hearing is responsible to ensure compliance with this obligation; calls for mandatory transparency checks by the administration and corresponding controls by the committee secretariats;












68.


Urges the administration to put in place the means to strengthen internal rules and instruments for the prevention of conflicts of interest, such as the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) and the Public Procurement Forum (PPF), particularly with regard to events and studies commissioned by Parliament’s bodies, and to make registration in the Transparency Register compulsory for external entities participating in any form;












69.


Stresses that the rules of access to Parliament’s premises for stakeholders need to be revised; recommends that digital solutions are used to integrate and track the stakeholders’ identification number in the Transparency Register in all Parliament’s activities involving external entities, such as requesting the registration number for the accreditation of visitors and for the organisation of events;












70.


Notes that the quality of entries in the Transparency Register has improved over recent years and commends the role of the joint secretariat in that improvement, despite limited resources; regrets, however, that the overall quality of entries remains unsatisfactory; calls for the provision of all necessary resources to ensure that the internal rules related to the Transparency Register are effectively enforced, including, where appropriate, the imposition of adequate sanctions; calls for the reinforcement of the Transparency Register which should be truly mandatory and an expansion of the scope of the Transparency Register to include representatives of third countries;












71.


Recalls the importance of ensuring and promoting a transparent and ethical interest representation at Union level and that a transparency register was set up in order to ensure that the Union institutions are open and transparent in their dialogue with interest representatives and civil society; recalls the transparency obligations arising under Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedures and calls on Parliament to actively encourage Members and staff not to hold any meetings or participate in lobbying activities with organisations that are not registered in the Transparency Register; recalls that information and reminder notices on the obligation to publish meetings with interest representatives should be sent to all Members at regular intervals; calls on Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs to revise the Rules of Procedure to extend the obligation to publish meetings with interest representatives to all Members working on reports, opinions or resolutions; welcomes the fact that Parliament’s infrastructure to enable Members to publish scheduled meetings with interest representatives has been updated and is now linked to both the Transparency Register and the Legislative Observatory; calls on Parliament’s services to expand the infrastructure on Parliament’s website to allow APAs and policy advisers to voluntarily publish their meetings with interest representatives; calls on parliamentary services to create a user-friendly online repository to publish information on lobbying meetings in open data format;












72.


Calls on the administration to take into account the demands of the Committee on Budgetary Control in relation to transparency and ethics in line with the action plan ‘Strengthening Integrity, Independence and Accountability – First steps’, approved by the Bureau on 8 February 2023, and with the relevant Parliament resolutions; calls on Parliament’s administration to likewise take into account the Ombudsman’s observations and future recommendations in the case SI/1/2023/MIK on the reform process to further improve the Parliaments ethics and transparency framework; urges Parliament to implement speedily all requests made in Parliament’s Resolutions including the reinforcement of the internal control and monitoring mechanisms, as well as the alignment of the internal rules on whistleblowing to the standards of the EU directive;












73.


Recalls in particular the need to implement without delay all 15 measures to curb corruption and enhance integrity, accountability and transparency adopted in its resolution of 15 December 2022 on suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the European institutions, as well as the clear requests made in the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2023 on following up on measures requested by Parliament to strengthen the integrity of the European institutions;












74.


Notes that the current guidelines for the 2021 interinstitutional agreement to register stakeholders are insufficient; stresses the need for a thorough pre-check within the registration in the transparency register to disclose all funding sources; notes that funding from the Union funds must be traceable from the direct recipient to the final beneficiary when funds are passed on in a chain; calls to revise the guidelines for the registration in the transparency register to disclose all incoming and outgoing funds, including the transfer of funds from one NGO and stakeholder to another;












75.


Observes that, in some cases, the work of NGOs and stakeholders has been used to finance illegal activities and to influence Parliament’s decision-making on behalf of third parties; points out that such cases have been detected thanks to the control and security measures in place, although there is significant scope for improvement;












76.


Reiterates that access of interest representatives to the Union institutions and their funding programmes must be verified in advance and checked for possible inclusion in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES);












77.


Calls for a ban on friendship groups with third countries when an official Parliament delegation already exists; recalls that Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure must be respected in order to avoid any confusion with the official activities of Parliament with third countries; recommends that Parliament allows, on a case-by-case basis, friendship groups for activities relating to certain sub-regions, or some local persecuted minorities for which an official delegation doesn’t exist;












78.


Notes that the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members investigated two cases of alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct in 2021, in one of which the President decided to impose a penalty in the form of a reprimand on the concerned Members in July 2021; notes that Parliament’s administration verified one case of a possible conflict of interest under the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members due to the recruitment of a family relative identified in 2021, which in turn eventually led to the initiation in 2022 of a recovery procedure of the misused parliamentary assistance expenditure;












79.


Points out that despite the fact that at least 25 breaches of the Code of Conduct by Members were recorded in the past eleven years, Parliament’s Presidents have never imposed a financial sanction on a Member; calls on the President to consider imposing financial sanctions when it has been proven that Members have breached the Code of Conduct to ensure the sanctions actually have a deterrent effect;












80.


Notes that, in 2021, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigated 18 cases and the European Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) investigated 3 cases involving Parliament on issues related to Members’ financial and social entitlements and the financing of political structures; notes that, out of 18 OLAF investigations, 4 led to a report with financial recommendations, 1 led to a final report with disciplinary recommendations, 5 led to a decision to dismiss the case, and 8 are still ongoing in 2022; notes also that OLAF investigated 5 cases involving Parliament’s staff, out of which 2 were closed in 2021 without any recommendation and 3 were not concluded; notes that none of the EPPO investigations were concluded in 2021; asks the administration whether the recommendations made by OLAF have been fully implemented and the amounts at risk have been recovered (particularly the EUR 1 837 000 found to be paid irregularly), as well as to provide a summary, without any sensitive data, of the typology of cases investigated in order to be able to draw conclusions and make improvements;












81.


Notes the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) currently does not have, under any circumstances, access to Member’s offices, computers and email accounts, even when investigating cases linked to Members based on a substantiated suspicion; underlines the need to have an adequate procedure for granting access to OLAF in cases of substantiated suspicions against individual Members; calls on the Bureau to set up such a procedure as well as to recognise and ensure OLAF’s competence to investigate possible breaches of the Code of Conduct by Members;












82.


Reiterates that Article 4 of the Code of Conduct provides that the Members’ declarations of financial interests are to be provided in a detailed manner so that any potential conflict of interest with parliamentary activity can be detected; regrets that, nevertheless, many declarations include only vague or generic job descriptions and, thus, repeats its call on the Bureau to review the format of the declarations to require more detail; asks the President to instruct the services to systematically carry out thorough checks of the declarations;












83.


Notes that only one notification of post-mandate employment was submitted to Parliament out of the 459 Members of the 8th parliamentary term who were not re-elected in 2019; notes that, in 2021, out of the 203 officials who left the service, 54 requested permission for an activity after leaving the service; welcomes the decision of the Bureau (4) to establish stronger rules to regulate revolving doors for former Members and officials, by introducing a cooling off period for former Members who shall not engage in lobbying or representational activities with Parliament, within the six months following the end of their mandate; also welcomes the decision to clarify the rules on accessing Parliament’s premises, replacing former Members’ permanent access badges by daily access ones, and ensuring that former Members and Parliament staff who engage in lobbying activities are identified with a specific badge; calls on Parliament to ensure these new rules are effective, closely monitored and enforced; believes that no General Expenditure Allowance should be paid to former Members and calls therefore for the deletion of Article 42, subparagraph 4 of the Implementing Measures of the Members’ Statute;












84.


Considers voting by roll call (RCV) to be a key instrument for transparency and accountability towards the Union citizens; calls for introducing automatic RCV to any final vote except for secret ballots, and for increasing the number of RCV that are possible for a political group to ask for per part-session in Rule 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure, or exempting legislative files from that limitation;












85.


Notes the ongoing project to make plenary voting records available in a dedicated space where users will have access to clear and reader-friendly documents and believes that Parliament should go further and create a coherent website combining the whole multitude of interconnected websites related to the legislative work, i.e. Legislative Observatory, Members’ profiles, the plenary website, etc. for the sake of transparency and public scrutiny; calls on Parliament’s services to also make available all amendments and RCV records at committee level and to include them in the new layout;












86.


Notes that the Ombudsman handled 16 cases concerning Parliament in 2021, out of which 2 recommendations were made and applied respectively by the Authority, which was asked to increase transparency on its website, and Parliament’s administration, which was asked to better inform applicants for traineeships on the possibility to request special assistance;












87.


Calls on the Bureau to revise the Code of Conduct by including restrictions on Members hiring not only direct, but also indirect family members;





Harassment and whistleblowing









88.


Notes that six harassment cases against Members were opened in 2021 and that four cases were pending from 2020; notes that no harassment was found in the four cases closed in 2021; notes that, in 2021, there was one new harassment complaint coming from a member of staff and notes that there was one ongoing case and three cases closed; regrets that the investigation of some harassment cases extended over more than a year causing unnecessary harm to Members, staff and APAs; reminds Parliament’s administration that it has a legal responsibility to investigate cases brought before it with due rigour, speed and discretion; calls on the Bureau to prescribe time limits for the handling of harassment complaints;












89.


Stresses that the Code of Appropriate Behaviour for Members of the European Parliament stipulates that, in exercising their duties, Members will behave towards everyone working in the European Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect and without prejudice or discrimination; welcomes Parliament’s zero-tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; is concerned, however, that on 28 October 2022 only 245 sitting Members (36,3 %) had completed the training on respect and dignity in the workplace; recalls that Parliament has requested on several occasions the implementation of mandatory anti-harassment training courses for all Members and suggests extending it to staff, including persons in managerial roles in the different directorates-general and political groups; welcomes the orientation debate on anti-harassment policies carried out in the Bureau meeting of 21 November 2022 and requests that the Bureau expresses a final position on the topic; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resolution, which should also include the provision of information to both parties on their rights;












90.


Notes that the ‘advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace’ is composed of three members designated by the Appointing Authority (including the chair), two Staff Committee members and one expert advisor from the medical service; notes that the ‘advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members’ is composed of three Quaestors (including the chair), the chair of the first committee, two APA committee members, one staff committee member (only for cases concerning a member of staff), and two expert advisors, namely from the legal and the medical services respectively; is concerned by the lack of independent experts on harassment issues in both committees, as well as the absence of the legal service in the first case; recalls that the chair of the latter committee has the casting vote and is concerned that the fact of being a Member could lead to conflicts of interest; calls on the Bureau to review the composition of both advisory committees in order to include the pertinent independent expertise, avoid conflicts of interest and to stipulate mandatory training on harassment prevention and equal opportunities for all their members; recommends a complete review of the functioning of the advisory committees with the assistance of specialists on harassment prevention selected for their competence, experience, independence and professional qualities, so that Parliament is equipped with clear, effective and robust rules of procedure while ensuring adequate response times and the necessary procedural safeguards, information, counselling and protection measures for all parties as appropriate;












91.


Notes that there was one case of whistleblowing in 2021 and that the whistleblower had contacted OLAF before addressing the contact point; calls on the Secretary-General to clarify contradictory data provided on the number of whistleblowing cases reported in 2021 and 2022 respectively; reminds the administration of its duty to immediately report alleged cases of fraud to OLAF; notes that Parliament’s administration received a number of anonymous allegations of fraud and misconduct that were all followed up either internally or by OLAF, and calls on Parliament’s administration to provide a summary of the nature of the possible cases opened and the measures taken by the administration;












92.


Recalls that Parliament has a whistleblower contact point within the cabinet of the Secretary-General to which irregularities can be reported and who provides advice and facilitates the application of Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the relevant implementing provisions; calls on the administration to urgently launch an awareness campaign regarding the existence of this contact point; calls on the Bureau to require relevant background checks and training for whistleblower contact points;












93.


Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position when it comes to reporting fraud and requesting whistleblower protection due to their specific employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to fully adapt the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 and contained in the Staff Regulations to align them to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), as well as to provide whistleblower APAs and staff with reinforced protection, including by setting up secure channels for reporting, in the same line as for victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation, all other appropriate protection measures and assistance to take legal action for damage suffered; requests Parliament to raise awareness, where possible, among parliamentary staff on the whistleblower protection available to them; further calls for mandatory whistleblowing training for MEPs and for any superior, both within the administration and political groups, that would receive potential whistleblowing reports (6);





Communication and interinstitutional cooperation


Communication









94.


Highlights the importance of its communication strategy to engage with Union citizens through a varied multichannel series of projects and activities despite the challenges encountered in 2021; notes an average growth in engagement rate of 69 % on Parliament social media channels between 2020 and 2021 and an average growth of 11 % in the number of followers in 2021; notes that, following a President decision in June 2021, visitors’ facilities were partially reopened and were able to welcome a total of 337 984 visitors until the end of the year and budgetary commitments of EUR 15 982 020 for 2021; notes that the works of the Zweig Visitor Centre continued as planned in 2021 and it was inaugurated in November 2022, and in this respect asks that consideration be given to the amount of time visitors’ groups invest in moving from the Zweig building to the Spaak building, including security and identification checks, which may reduce the number of groups that can be received on a daily basis; notes that the House of European History, the Parlamentarium and the Europa Experiences remained closed or operated at reduced capacity for parts of 2021; welcomes the fact that the European Youth Event could finally be held in 2021 in a hybrid format and that it was a success with 10 000 young people taking part, although regrets a certain lack of preparation for the security checks which delayed access to Parliament’s premises; notes the first editions of the LUX Audience award, with 6 000 voters, and the Daphne Caruana Galizia Prize for journalism, which drew over 200 applications from across the Union;












95.


Notes that four European Parliament liaison offices (EPLOs) in Madrid, Rome, Bratislava and Zagreb were equipped with VoxBox facilities in 2021 as part of a pilot project and that it is planned to install light and user-friendly audiovisual equipment in 14 of the 24 selected EPLOs by the end of June 2022; recalls that Parliament also upgraded audiovisual facilities in EPLOs in the context of remote plenary sessions; expects a revision of the EPLOs’ communication strategy so that the investment made will really help to reach out to Union citizens and calls on the EPLOs to provide timely notice to Members of their constituencies of the calendar of activities in order to ensure a better coordination and presence of Members;












96.


Underlines that the workload in the EPLOs seems to have dramatically increased taking on new permanent tasks, and calls for Parliament to ensure EPLOs have sufficient human, technical and financial resources to fulfil their missions;












97.


Notes that, in May 2018, the Bureau approved an upgrade of the former Info-Point in Brussels and that the new Info Hub aims to attract civil society stakeholders, multipliers, partners and specialised interest groups; notes that the Info Hub has had a total cost of roughly EUR 8 400 000 which includes approximately EUR 6,6 million for renovation works and EUR 1,8 million for communication activities, and that it has welcomed 20 000 visitors since it opened its doors in mid-July 2022; regrets, however, that Members are not aware of those facilities and calls for a better information campaign to publicise their activities and possible uses;












98.


Welcomes the ambitious Europa Experience programme that aims to bring the Union close to its citizens; welcomes the fact that the global number of visitors to Europe Experience centres slightly increased from 124 352 in 2020 to 135 835 in 2021, despite the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic; notes likewise that travel restrictions in 2020 and 2021 provoked delays in building contract procedures (namely in Dublin, Prague, Madrid, Bucharest, Lisbon, Bratislava, Riga and Vilnius) without a negative impact on rent payments as they are triggered by the completion of the fit-out work; notes that, in 2021, there were six operational decentralised visitor facilities (Berlin, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Ljubljana, Tallinn and the Parlamentarium Simone Veil in Strasbourg), as well as that Parliament’s Directorate for Communication launched the implementation of five new large-scale exhibitions (Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Prague and Warsaw), and completed the design of another three new projects (Vienna, Dublin and Luxembourg) while DG INLO conducted a series of feasibility studies in seven other capitals; notes that the majority of Europa Experience facilities will be open to the public in 2024, but understands the dependence of this project on the prospects in a rapidly changing real estate market;












99.


Notes that the lunchtime classical music concerts in the Citizens’ Garden were conceived to support classical musicians during the COVID-19 crisis and to demonstrate the value that Parliament places on European musical heritage; notes that 40 concerts were held in 2021 with 4 106 attendees, with a budget of EUR 51 925; supports wholeheartedly this initiative during the extraordinary COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, but questions Parliament’s use of taxpayers’ money to renovate the Citizens’ Garden and house, a public space that belongs to the Belgian State;





Multilingualism









100.


Recalls that the Union, and therefore Parliament too, is legally committed to providing accessible information and communication under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; calls therefore on Parliament’s administration to develop specific initiatives to ensure more and better accessibility to its documents and debates, with a particular focus on the State of the Union debate as well as the ‘This is Europe’ plenary debates, building on examples like the interpretation in International Sign of the Commission’s weekly college read-outs; reiterates its long-standing request to the Secretary-General to analyse the feasibility of international sign language interpretation for all plenary debates and to implement without delay this request; believes moreover that plenary sessions retransmission in the sign languages used in each Member State would increase participation of persons with disabilities in the Union’s democratic process; notes that the Directorate-General for Translation is developing a tool that is able to automatically transcribe and translate parliamentary multilingual debates in real time, so that all citizens have equal access to information in their language; requests an update on the project and an analysis on its implementation and total cost;





International cooperation









101.


Notes that the presence of Parliament’s officials in Union delegations or other bodies aims to strengthen inter-parliamentary relations with international organisations; reiterates, however, the concern regarding the Bureau decision of 11 February 2019 regarding parliamentary support to the European Union Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta, the Delegation of the European Union to the African Union in Addis Ababa and the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations in New York; notes that no staff were deployed in 2020, while two officials were seconded to New York and one to Addis Ababa in 2022; reminds Parliament’s administration of its commitment to establish measurable indicators to assess their annual performance; draws attention to the fact that Parliament’s administration has set up a unit in charge of relations with ASEAN and has proposed most of its staff to be deployed in Jakarta, while for the other two destinations the administration has simply selected senior members of staff; reiterates its call for transparent appointment processes of the staff involved and for Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control to be kept informed;












102.


Is concerned by the fact that in 2021 eight Members decided, on their own initiative, to observe elections in third countries where Parliament had decided not to send an election observation delegation or had not been invited; notes that in all eight cases the Members were in breach of the Implementing Provisions of the European Parliament’s Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group and that they could not and were not selected to participate in an official Election Observation delegation until the end of 2021; requests that Members involved in unofficial election observation missions should be sanctioned for the duration of the mandate;





Digitalisation and cybersecurity









103.


Welcomes the fact that the Digital Signature Portal (DiSP) allows Members to digitally sign documents, which improves efficiency, traceability and transparency to the procedures, and regrets that, in contrast to DiSP, signing plenary amendments by hand and sending them in scanned form is still an outdated and burdensome procedure; calls on the Bureau to take the necessary steps for introducing the possibility for Members to sign plenary amendments digitally in the future; calls for the extension of DISP to all signed documents;












104.


Notes the decision of 10 May 2021 to suspend HERMES, a document management and archiving software, due to a series of deficiencies, mainly the fact that it was impossible to adapt it to Parliament workflows and other major technical issues; notes that back-end and front-end parts of the HERMES system to date had an external cost of EUR 7 500 000 and an internal cost of EUR 1 700 000 amounting to a total of approximately EUR 9 200 000, reported as asset under construction; notes that the back-end part of the HERMES system is still in use as a system for document and record management and also for other applications;












105.


Notes that, in 2021, the overall cost of technical solutions to allow remote voting sessions amounted to EUR 1 275 500, including an extension of the plenary applications (EUR 120 000), the development of the EPvote application (EUR 233 500), IT support to Members (EUR 529 200), to deploy the e-voting system (EUR 250 000) and ad hoc services to allow Members’ participation from EPLOs (EUR 142 800); takes note of the importance of all of the IT systems that ensure proper remote functioning of Parliament, points out, however, that all innovations implemented will require an investment for their maintenance in view of future uses;












106.


Notes that, frequently, Parliament’s Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) is not reachable at peak login hours in the morning; calls on the services to ensure that that the VDI has sufficient capacity to allow for a swift login even at peak hours;












107.


Welcomes Parliament’s investment in strengthening its cybersecurity, which includes the creation of a dedicated Directorate in DG ITEC and a significant increase of the related resources aiming to increase the protection of Parliament’s information systems in the face of constantly growing threats and ransomware attacks; urges Parliament to maintain its efforts and increase its investments in cybersecurity; underlines the need to ensure the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified staff in this very strategic sector; suggests to offer regularly updated cybersecurity-related training for all of Parliament’s staff; welcomes the expansion of the range of digital services provided via the e-Portal leading to an increase of 67 % in the number of transactions, which is a significant increase compared to 2020, and to the achievement of 85 % use rate of the e-Portal by Members for their travel and subsistence expenses; commends the specific measures undertaken to facilitate administrative procedures and reduce bureaucracy when it comes to the services for Members, including the increased digitalisation of the e-Portal;












108.


Notes that DG SAFE’s reorganisation has foreseen the creation of the new Directorate on Security Technology and Information aiming to ensure protection of all categories of information handled by Parliament; observes that when the specific unit responsible for security engineering was created the head of unit position did not appear as such in Parliament’s organisation chart; calls on the Secretary-General to remedy this situation promptly in order to provide the new key directorate with the necessary resources to fulfil its responsibilities;





Building policy, logistics and security


Building policy









109.


Notes that it is intended that ‘Parliament’s Buildings Strategy beyond 2019’ will provide a framework for future decisions and contribute to consolidate Parliament’s real estate portfolio while adapting facilities to the evolution of meeting patterns, going local and closer to citizens through Europa Experience facilities, enhancing security for Parliament’s buildings, and achieving the interconnection of central buildings; notes that Parliament’s administration is currently working on a comprehensive approach to define Parliament’s long-term building policy taking account of the impact of the energy crisis, the rising price of raw material, environmental obligations and new working methods introduced in Parliament; calls on Parliament’s administration to reflect on the need to acquire or construct new buildings in the future; notes the adoption on 8 March 2021 of an integrated facility management strategy focusing on a life cycle management of Parliament’s building portfolio;












110.


Expresses concerns about structural problems in the Trèves I building; underlines the urgent need for the building to be upgraded to the latest energy and environmental norms; underlines the need for urgent measures to fix the unstable heating system, the lack of air conditioning and toilets for persons with reduced mobility, the poor sound proofing, as well as the sewage problem;












111.


Notes the purchase of the Trèves II building approved by the Bureau on 18 October 2021, purchased with the intention of allowing the interconnectivity of Parliament’s central buildings in Brussels, and notes that it will be at the disposal of Parliament as from 1 January 2025; warns that the energy performance certificate indicates an annual primary energy consumption equivalent to class E, and that the last renovation of the building dates back to 2000; calls on the Bureau to approve the necessary renovations to improve the energy performance of the building in accordance with applicable energy efficiency regulations as the building is put to use by Parliament;












112.


Notes the architectural competition on the design of the renewal of the Spaak building for which the competitors submitted their proposals in January 2021, the jury analysed the 15 entries and ranked the five laureates in February 2021 and the Bureau endorsed the five laureates proposed by the jury at its meeting of 6 July 2022; is of the opinion that the necessary steps must be taken to renovate the building given its deteriorating condition in order to ensure the security and well-being of staff without unreasonable budgetary implications; therefore calls for proper information to be provided and consultation with the relevant Parliament committees on the next steps to be taken in the renovation plans, as well as plans regarding the purchase of new buildings;












113.


Takes note of the unanimous decision of the Bureau of 23 October 2019 to approve the creation of an IDEA Lab with the aim of testing new, innovative solutions in the context of offices and facility management; notes that the decision of the Bureau was not based on any specific cost estimate and welcomes the announcement of the new Secretary-General that each proposal for a decision will be accompanied by a financial statement of the estimated costs, and that expenditure should be accounted for transparently; welcomes the creation of a permanent laboratory for innovation together with the establishment of a separate budget line but considers that the costs need to remain reasonable and justifiable; notes that construction works needed to implement the innovative architectural concept, including the technical equipment and the installation costs, had a cost of 2 000 EUR/m2 in addition to the ‘standard’ renovation works, which is expected to benefit later renovation work in case of a larger roll-out; notes that to date the construction works needed to implement the architectural concept amount to EUR 663 265 while the IT equipment cost EUR 108 104;












114.


Points out that the IDEA Lab is supposed to be at the disposal of Members; requests that Members be informed in this regard about innovations and tested solutions that are to be introduced in the future and those that are not pursued any further and reasons for not pursuing those innovations and solutions; questions the rationale behind the selection of the providers and of some of the technical innovations to be tested and regrets that some of the innovations would be too expensive to scale despite their interest; is of the opinion that one of the priorities of the IDEA Lab should be an innovative architectural solution to make better use of the space occupied by the unused showers in the Members’ offices; calls on the Bureau working group on buildings and Parliament’s administration to ensure greater transparency regarding the budget for the IDEA Lab and to regularly present to the Committee on Budgetary Control the list of innovative solutions, their cost and the feedback produced, as well as the potential saving if implemented;












115.


Notes that, in 2021, the total number of reported thefts in Members’ offices and staff offices was 83, representing a 58,2 % decrease compared to 2020, with a total value of stolen items amounting to EUR 190 791; welcomes the fact that Parliament’s responsible services identified the perpetrator of two important thefts, one related to 101 hybrid computers and 26 iPads and the other related to 15 hybrid computers, and that the case is pending before the Belgian judicial proceedings;












116.


Welcomes the fact that the Wayenberg crèche was certified by the Belgian national authority (ONE – Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance) at the end of 2021; regrets the issues encountered with the service provider in 2021, including the closure of sections and successive sudden changes to the internal COVID-19 protocol, and welcomes the positive transition to a new provider as of 1 February 2022 as well as the measure to monitor the implementation of the new contract;












117.


Notes that the East Wing of the Adenauer building in Luxembourg was completed in 2020 and the large-scale relocation of offices from the Schuman building ended in 2022; notes that works to build the West Wing started in 2020 and that the office space are almost all allocated to the parliament staff; expresses its deep concern over the fact that Parliament’s biggest and most expensive investment in buildings in recent years stands under-used due to a very low occupancy rate of the buildings;





Canteens









118.


Notes with concern the Secretary-General’s decision of 22 March 2021 to abolish the Supervisory Committee for Canteens, Cafeterias and the Staff Shop (CORECA) based on the fact that since October 2020 all activities in the sector on Parliament’s premises have operated under concession contracts, which function without any direct involvement from Parliament’s budget; believes, however, that CORECA was a useful contact point between Parliament’s competent services and the Staff Committee on the food offer and the catering services, and that it would have been useful, for instance, to involve and receive feedback from the staff about the recent adaptation of the food offer in several venues; calls, therefore, on the Secretary-General to reinstate CORECA or a similar contact point to involve staff representatives;












119.


Notes that Parliament’s canteen on the –1 floor of the Spinelli building, in addition to the deterioration in the quality of the food it offers, is frequently overcrowded at peak hours, resulting in long queues and waiting times; regrets also that the Astrid Lulling Lounge has reduced its offer and only a hot daily dish is available; calls on the Bureau to reflect on the need for a more varied food choice and the possibility of imposing some access restrictions to the canteens in Parliament’s main buildings;












120.


Recalls that the technical specifications of the concession contracts provide for the obligation to offer a solution to respond to food intolerances upon advance request; points out that the vast majority of clients are completely unaware that such conditionality exists and, in any case, clearly insufficient for the service provided in Parliament; calls for more communication and direct information on allergen specifications in the meals proposed; reiterates its request that at least one fresh gluten-free meal option is available each day in Parliament’s canteens and cafeterias as well as options that clearly take other dietary restrictions into account;





Security









121.


Notes the preparation throughout 2021 of the internalisation of general security services in Luxembourg with the organisation and follow-up of all recruitment procedures and an induction training for 115 agents; notes that the internalisation entered into force on 1 January 2022; is concerned that offering posts in function group I and the associated salary makes it difficult to attract and recruit specialised staff from all Member States in the security field; reiterates that it is particularly concerned about the situation in Luxembourg, where this salary is lower than the minimum inter-professional salary, forcing Parliament to resort to a compensatory allowance; reiterates, therefore, that Parliament should convey to the Commission the extreme urgency of creating a correction coefficient for Luxembourg;












122.


Highlights the Integrated Physical Access Control System (iPACS) project aiming to provide Parliament with a robust, efficient and innovative physical access control system; notes the delays in the implementation of the project occurred in 2020 due to a possible exclusion under Article 136(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation of the selected contractor; notes with satisfaction the cooperation between DG SAFE and DG INLO allowing the resumption of all technical work as of June 2021 and the integration of all Parliament’s buildings in the system; welcomes the distribution of highly secure, non-duplicable access badges to all Members, APAs and external providers;












123.


Regrets that the evacuation system in Parliament’s buildings is largely based on security volunteers, and underlines the difficulties in recruiting them in buildings where there administrative staff are less present and taking into account that volunteers can also be on a teleworking mode; stresses the importance of not counting only on trained volunteers capable of guiding and supporting people present in Parliament’s building during evacuation simulations and real emergencies;












124.


Calls on the security services controlling access to Parliament’s buildings to find a reasonable solution for external photographers who work in Parliament’s premises on a daily basis and who have to carry a large amount of professional equipment through the security control every time, for example by allowing them to use the specific access for press;












125.


Points out that at weekends, access to Parliament’s buildings requires attendance to be signed on a paper register and, based on past problems with this method, strongly recommends that a more reliable and effective system be put in place;





Environmental footprint of Parliament’s operations and mobility









126.


Notes the gap analysis of Parliament’s current environmental performance carried out by the EMAS Unit on 14 December 2021; calls on Parliament’s administration to report on the activities that aim to close the gaps in order to achieve all targets on time selected by the Bureau Working Group on Buildings, Transport and Green Parliament;












127.


Notes with satisfaction that emissions in 2021 are lower than in 2019, with 2 501 tonnes of CO2; welcomes the fact that several practices developed or expanded in 2020 and 2021 to ensure business continuity and proved beneficial for Parliament’s environmental performance are likely to be maintained in the future, in particular measures related to digitalisation and teleworking, that helped to reduce paper consumption (11,8 kg/FTE in 2021 compared to 28,1 kg/FTE in 2019), the transport of documentation between the three places of work (49 tonnes of CO2 compared to 72 tonnes in 2019) and the CO2 emissions caused by commuting and travelling;












128.


Recalls that the transport of persons accounts for roughly two-thirds of Parliament’s carbon footprint; notes that the CO2 emissions from the monthly commutes to Strasbourg in 2021 amounted to approximately 490 tonnes of CO2, including travel of staff and APAs, and transport of documents and equipment; underlines however Parliament’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions through chartered trains and the ‘paperless initiative’ to help reduce its carbon footprint;












129.


Notes that 15 plenary sessions took place in 2021, out of which 14 took place in a hybrid format (5 in Brussels, 7 in Strasbourg and 2 mini-sessions in Brussels), while a mini-session in Brussels took place in the standard format; notes that, in 2021, the cost of the chartered Thalys trains to commute to Strasbourg was EUR 2 227 207 and the cost of missions was EUR 9 578 266, bearing in mind that external interpreters worked remotely which decreased the total cost compared to pre-pandemic years; notes that chartered Thalys trains were cancelled from January until May 2021 while for June and July 2021 only one train was put in place, resulting in total savings of EUR 1 659 845 for the year 2021; notes that the spending on staff missions to Strasbourg in 2021 was reduced by EUR 18 248 274 in comparison to the total spending in 2018;












130.


Notes that the suspension of plenary part-sessions in Strasbourg contributed to total savings of EUR 26 260 608 according to Parliament’s Secretariat, while also significantly reducing Parliament’s carbon footprint; highlights that the Court estimates that ‘the end of moving from Strasbourg to Brussels could generate annual savings of EUR 114 million plus a one-off saving of EUR 616 million if the Strasbourg buildings are successfully divested, or a one-off cost of EUR 40 million if they are not’;












131.


Notes that the total cost of energy and heating in 2021 was EUR 13 157 982 (EUR 2 259 496 in Luxembourg, EUR 3 102 010 in Strasbourg and EUR 7 796 476 in Brussels), while the estimated annual energy and heating costs of Parliament’s premises for 2022 amounts to EUR 41 020 327 and budgetary appropriations for 2023 for this purpose amount to EUR 42 150 000; is concerned that the current energy crisis will lead to further increases in energy prices in the future and that Parliament’s budget will therefore be heavily affected, so that proportionate and effective energy saving measures will be essential;












132.


Welcomes the installation of photovoltaic solar panels on the Spinelli, Montoyer 70, Brandt and Antall buildings in Brussels; welcomes further the decision to launch a new study on on-site electricity production in Strasbourg in order to update the data and explore new solutions; further encourages the Bureau to decide to install as many photovoltaic panels as feasible and useful based on the results of the study;





Energy-saving measures









133.


Acknowledges that, following the example of measures taken in many Member States and in other Union institutions, the decision taken by the Bureau to turn off the heating system and let the building drift to a minimal temperature as of Thursday evening to Monday morning and over the holiday periods would result in significant savings estimated at over EUR 2,5 million in total; however, calls on Parliament to guarantee an adequate temperature in Parliament’s buildings from Monday to Friday as regular working days; understands the need to reduce energy consumption and emphasises that heat-saving measures need to remain compatible with staff welfare;












134.


Recalls that efficient lighting solutions are an essential factor for the sustainability of buildings; welcomes the fact that the replacement of existing lighting with low-energy LED lights is evaluated whenever possible and feasible in Parliament’s buildings; notes that offices in those Parliament’s buildings in Brussels that are rented or awaiting decision on their future are not equipped with motion detectors and that it appears that the motion detectors in several offices in the Spinelli building do not work properly; welcomes the fact that, in Strasbourg, all offices are equipped with motion detectors, and that, in Luxembourg, the new Adenauer building is equipped with automatic switch-off based on the absence of movement; calls on Parliament to ensure that fully functioning motion detectors are installed in Brussels as soon as possible wherever feasible to reduce energy consumption; understands the need to reduce electricity consumption but calls for light-saving measures to be compatible with staff welfare;





Mobility









135.


Understands that the core business of the service cars is the transport of Members, including the journey between Brussels and Strasbourg; points out, the fact that on average 15 % of the seats available in the service fleet were not occupied for that journey in 2021; reiterates its call on Parliament’s administration to widen the user group while making sure that Members’ seats are secured, i.e. allowing Parliament’s staff to travel without the presence of a Member, giving regular updates on the numbers of seats available, establishing a reserve list and coherent deadlines to confirm the journey;












136.


Welcomes the fact that the Brussels site has 138 parking spaces reserved for electric vehicles, each with a charging station, plus 12 units for Parliament’s delivery vans; notes that following the latest environmental permit, issued by the local authorities in April 2021 for the Spinelli building, a sprinkler system is necessary for this large underground car park equipped with charging stations and it will be installed in 2022, which will allow for the installation of 20 additional charging stations; calls on DG INLO to design and implement a schedule for charging stations to prevent single vehicles from blocking individual spots for long periods of time; encourages Parliament to continue with an ambitious expansion of the electrical charging infrastructure for all types of vehicles;












137.


Notes the creation in 2021 of new bicycle parking areas in the Scholl and Adenauer buildings; calls on the administration to assess the current needs of staff in terms of bicycle parking spaces inside and outside of Parliament’s buildings and, if necessary, to increase the number of available spaces;












138.


Welcomes the possibility for staff to rent standard and electric bikes during the part-time sessions in Strasbourg; regrets that the bikes are in practice fully booked out more than a week in advance; calls on Parliament to examine the possibility of offering more rental bikes in Strasbourg to meet the demand of Members and staff and contribute to enhancing sustainable mobility;





Finance and administration









139.


Points out that budgetary, administrative and staff related decisions taken by Parliament’s governing bodies have a cross-cutting impact on the administration, thus affecting the implementation phase, for example, services other than those initially envisaged; calls therefore on the Secretary-General to include a realistic impact assessment on Parliament’s budget, administration and staff in his future proposals before the discussion in Parliament’s governing bodies;












140.


Calls for an end to the use of external companies that are, according to Yale University’s ranking (7)
, continuing to operate in Russia;












141.


Notes, that the last revision of the rules governing the reception of groups of visitors from 18 January 2021 does not include a reflection on possible force majeure circumstances when it comes to cancellations of visits; invites the Bureau to consider accepting national strike as a force majeure circumstance when cancelling an organised group visit, as it is often the case that national strike days are announced at a much later stage and after tickets have been purchased and it is extremely onerous to cancel a group visit last minute and be able to recover all the financial costs incurred whilst organising the visit;





JSIS









142.


Calls on the Bureau to ensure that the joint sickness insurance scheme (JSIS) shall provide a coherent and individual explanation for declining a reimbursement request; notes that the culture of declining a reimbursement request in pdf format without the possibility to challenge the decision in person imposes certain difficulties on the applicants applying for reimbursement; calls on the Bureau to consider introducing the possibility for local doctors in charge of a treatment of an applicant to talk to the responsible JSIS unit or expert group to explain the treatment and medical benefits; further expresses its wish to improve the user-friendliness of the application enabling a quicker and more direct follow-up of individual requests; requests that the relevant bodies within JSIS duly and regularly take into account recent medical developments and knowledge gains when updating the list of eligible treatments and drugs;





Members’ travel and expenses









143.


Recalls the Court’s recommendation that Parliament should implement the necessary changes to ensure that it only pays daily subsistence allowances to Members who qualify for them, which was accepted by Parliament; recalls that the project to automate the central and plenary attendance register with biometric technology was decided by the Bureau in June 2019, that Parliament’s administration integrated into the project a first batch of recommendations submitted by the European Data Protection Supervisor in March 2021 and that now it is awaiting its final recommendations; is of the opinion that the use of new technology is an essential step towards digitalisation of financial processes aiming to avoid fraud and impersonation, to increase administrative efficiency and to speed up payments of related entitlements, and therefore calls for the automation of the attendance register to be carried out by means of an efficient and safe solution with all the necessary guarantees regarding data protection;












144.


Recalls that, in 2019, Parliament launched a project to automate the registration of attendance with biometric technology in the central attendance register and signed a contract for this project at the end of 2020; stresses that the large-scale processing of biometric data should be avoided; again asks the Bureau to develop an alternative solution that does not involve the processing of biometric data and ensures that only Members entitled to the daily subsistence allowance actually receive it; regrets that this project is still being pursued despite the European Data Protection Supervisor’s adverse opinion at the end of March 2021 and reiterated in its Annual Report 2021, where it was stated that Parliament should consider less intrusive alternatives with regard to data protection;












145.


Welcomes the announcement by the President of 21 November 2022 on the creation of a Bureau ad hoc working group to carry out a thorough overhaul of the IMMS in order to adapt the provisions to the recent legislative developments, new practices of Members and the recommendations from the internal auditor while ensuring consistency and legal certainty; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members and the relevant services of the administration is carried out before the end of the current mandate to provide this working group with first-hand information from experienced Members and officials on the practical application of the rules governing Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies such as the rules concerning the timetable and cities for the opening of the register of Members’ attendance in relation to plenary sessions, missions and other parliamentary activities;












146.


Deplores the fact that there is no system in place to ensure that Members can continue to perform their core duties, mainly speaking in debates and voting, when they are temporarily absent for a justified reason, such as parental leave, long-term sick leave or carer’s leave; deems this problematic as it can negatively impact citizens’ representation in Parliament and particularly younger, in particular female, Members; takes note of the changes in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on 20 December 2020 allowing for remote voting but only on the condition that the President establishes extraordinary circumstances; reiterates its request, adopted at Plenary level on several occasions, to the Bureau to launch a revision of the Rules of Procedure in order to enable Members to exercise their duties during justified absences, thus capitalising on the great effort and financial investment that Parliament has made in technical solutions to allow remote voting;












147.


Recalls that in previous discharge resolutions Parliament requested a reform of the GEA to make the expenditure of this lump sum more transparent and accountable; notes the announcement at the Bureau meeting of 7 March 2022 regarding the setting up of a Bureau ad hoc working group on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the operation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018 establishing a list of expenses which may be defrayed from the GEA on the basis of the experience gained during the 9th parliamentary term; observes that the Bureau, at is meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendments to the IMMS, clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at increasing transparency and providing more legal certainty regarding the entitlement to the allowance; highlights, that the ad-hoc Working Group was asked to take duly into account aspects of transparency, accountability and sound financial management of funds made available to Members, bearing in mind the principle of freedom and independence of the parliamentary mandate and the objective to avoid creating unnecessary administrative burdens for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; highlights, that Members are free to document their use of the funds under the GEA, in detail or by type of cost, on their own or with the support of an external auditor, and to have this information published in whole or in part on their online page on Parliament’s website in accordance with Rule 11, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament; welcomes that a simplified list of types of costs is integrated into the IMMS and that an amendment clarifying the possibility for Members to use the GEA in case of exhaustion of other allowances is also adopted;












148.


Recalls that pursuant to Rule 11(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Parliament already provides Members with the possibility of publishing a voluntary audit or confirmation of their expenses and regrets that only 18 voluntary declarations on the use of the GEA were submitted during the calendar year 2021; calls on Parliament’s services to send an annual reminder to Members in relation to this possibility;












149.


Recalls that the European Ombudsman (the ‘Ombudsman’), in case 1651/2018/THH, recommended granting public access to a proposal from the Bureau’s ad hoc working group on the revision of the list of expenses which may be defrayed from the GEA; regrets that Parliament rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation and urges Parliament’s administration to reconsider granting public access to the documents in question;












150.


Note that the ordinary travel expenses, in 2021, amounted to EUR 40 338 767; suggests a review of the pricing policy applied by the travel agency in order to balance the flexibility needed by Parliament and less expensive options; points out that sometimes the travel proposals offered by the travel agency to Members are not very reader-friendly and take too long to arrive, the latter impacting the price of the options on offer or even the availability of travel options; calls for Parliament’s administration to carry out a satisfaction survey on the services offered, addressed to all Members, not only to frequent clients, to find out what problems may have prevented some of them from making a booking with the travel agency; points out that mission orders for the members of staff often arrive too close to the travel date even if the mission is agreed much earlier, which also has a negative impact on the available offers, and asks the administration to seek improvements to this situation;












151.


Notes that, in 2021, when contacted in the context of a mission of Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with the Countries of Central America (DCAM), the travel agency could not provide a quote for flights to and from Cuba because, as a US-owned company, it has to respect the US embargo against Cuba; notes that the travel agency had to outsource the search for the aforementioned flights to another agency, leading to delays in the process; recalls that Parliament’s bodies are obliged to use a quote from its travel agency in order to establish a financial statement for missions, which may be negatively impacted by restrictions concerning Cuba and other countries on which the US has imposed sanctions; demands that this issue be duly taken into account in the next tender for the selection of a new travel agency;












152.


Calls on DG FINS to establish a clear methodology of responsibility, which is in line with rule of law standards, between members, paying agents, assistants, and service providers, that guarantees in case of errors or misuses related to payments or other financial transactions, that only the party which committed the error or misuse, will be held accountable and responsible; stresses that sanctions should be attributed only to the party that committed the error and is responsible for the misuse of funds;












153.


Is deeply concerned about the extent of discretionary powers of responsible DG FINS staff when evaluating members’ requests including when selecting the employment or service provider contracts for further ex post verification; notes lack of formal accountability mechanisms and procedures for ensuring due process in proceedings with DG FINS, increasing the risk of discrimination and unequal treatment; reminds DG FINS to apply transparent, clear and non-discriminatory standards including when performing controls on the fulfilment of tasks carried out by local assistants;





Voluntary Pension Fund









154.


Is concerned that the actuarial deficit of the Voluntary Pension Fund (VPF) on 31 December 2021 amounted to EUR 379 million (compared to EUR 371,3 million on 31 December 2020); is concerned that the complete exhaustion is expected by the end of 2024 or 2025 at the latest and that in the meantime the VPF continues to sell assets in order to meet its pension obligations, which probably means that the remaining capital is being reduced; recalls the Bureau decision of 10 December 2018 increasing the retirement age from 63 to 65 years and introducing a levy of 5 % to pension payments for future pensioners with a view to improving the VPF sustainability; notes that in its judgment of 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-720/19 to T-725/19, Ashworth and Others v Parliament (8), the General Court concluded that already acquired rights were not impacted by the contested Bureau decision of 10 December 2018 and confirmed the Bureau’s competence to adopt decisions aiming to improve the sustainability of the fund provided that they respect the principle of proportionality; notes that an appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice against its judgment of the 15 September 2021 and that in the meantime Parliament’s Bureau is in the process of examining the implications for future proposals for options to improve the sustainability of the fund while reducing Parliament`s liability; urges the Secretary-General therefore to propose further feasible measures to the Bureau on adjusting the modalities of the fund;












155.


Calls on the Bureau to help clarify the entitlements of Members and former Members, who receive several pensions due to positions in the Union institutions; highlights the case of former Commissioners and requests information if the voluntary pension fund payments can be disbursed in addition to entitlements stemming from their Commissioner pension rights and if candidates for Commissioner were obliged to disclose this information; asks Parliament to clarify if the mutual and partial deduction of pensions is possible;












156.


Calls on the Bureau to provide the discharge authority with a detailed cost estimate projection for the fund for the coming years; and to follow-up on finding a feasible, legal and fair solution given the urgency of the matter; asks the administration and the Bureau to guarantee that no taxpayer money is used for any future bail-out;












157.


Acknowledges that Parliament is not involved in the management of the portfolio but expresses its concern regarding the articles published in the press about the investments made by VPF and the potential reputational risk for the institution; underlines that investments should be aligned and coherent with the goals and objectives set by Union policies; calls on the advisory board of the fund to revise all ongoing investments not in line with Union values and goals;





Annual report on contracts awarded









158.


Recalls that the Financial Regulation specifies the information to be provided to the budgetary authority and to the public concerning the award of contracts by the institution; notes that the Financial Regulation requires publication of contracts awarded with a value greater than EUR 15 000, a value that corresponds to the threshold above which a competitive tendering procedure becomes compulsory; notes that, of a total of 221 contracts awarded in 2021, 80 were based on open or restricted procedures, with a value of EUR 761,1 million, and 135 were based on negotiated procedures, with a value of EUR 253,5 million; notes that the total number of contracts awarded by negotiated procedures decreased in terms of value as a percentage of the total value of contracts awarded from 31 % in 2020 to 2 % in 2021 but increased in terms of volume from EUR 179,1 million in 2020 to EUR 253,5 million in 2021;












159.


Notes the following breakdown of contracts by type awarded in 2020 and 2021, including building contracts:









Type of contract


2021


2020




Number


Percentage (%)


Number


Percentage (%)




Services
Supplies
Works
Building


176 
27 
10 
8 


79,6 
12 
4,5 
3,6 


161 
21 
13 
3 


81,3 
10,6 
6,6 
1,5 





Total




221 




100 




225 




100 














Type of contract


2021


2020




Value (EUR)


Percentage (%)


Value (EUR)


Percentage (%)




Services
Supplies
Works
Building


634 689 038 
136 777 513 
76 247 759 
168 302 638 


62 
13 
8 
17 


457 940 293 
14 143 825 
28 291 234 
86 812 000 


77 
3 
5 
15 





Total




1 016 016 948 




100 




587 187 352 




100 





(Annual report on the contracts awarded by the European Parliament, 2021, p. 7)
















160.


Notes the following breakdown of contracts awarded in 2021 and 2020 by type of procedure used, in terms of number and value:









Type of procedure


2021


2020




Number


Percentage (%)


Number


Percentage (%)




Open
Restricted
Negotiated
CEI list
Exceptional
Innovation partnership
DPS
OP Accelerated


78 
2 
135 
2 
2 
0 
1 
0 


35 
1 
61 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 


57 
3 
135 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 


29 
2 
68 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 





Total




221 




100 




198 




100 

















161.


Welcomes the fact that on 1 June 2021 Parliament established a Working Group on Socially Responsible Public Procurement involving all directorates-general and tasked with developing principles and practical guides for increased implementation of social elements in Parliament’s procurement; notes that the working group agreed on a first preliminary approach for social procurement at the end of 2021 and this approach is being implemented in a test phase during 2022; welcomes the fact that Parliament has developed training on sustainable/socially responsible public procurement for its staff and that a helpdesk service is made available to Parliament’s services;





Political groups (budget item 4 0 0)









162.


Notes that, in 2021, the appropriations entered under budget item 4 0 0, attributed to the political groups and non-attached Members, were used as follows (9):















Group


2021


2020




Annual appropriations


Own resources and carried-over appropriations


Expenditure


Rate of use of annual appropriations (%)


Amounts carried-over to next period


Annual appropriations


Own resources and carried-over appropriations


Expenditure


Rate of use of annual appropriations (%)


Amounts carried-over to next period




European People’s Party (EPP)


16 750 


10 229 


13 646 


81,47 


12 562 


17 239 


4 448 


11 489 


66,65 


10 198 




Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D)


13 584 


9 829 


12 295 


90,51 


10 188 


13 609 


5 734 


9 533 


70,05 


9 809 




Renew Europe (former Alliance of Liberal and Democrats for Europe (ALDE))


9 192 


6 948 


6 997 


76,12 


6 894 


9 230 


3 847 


4 063 


44,02 


6 922 




The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA)


6 927 


4 891 


6 126 


88,43 


5 196 


6 381 


2 376 


4 054 


63,53 


4 703 




Identity and Democracy (ID)


6 874 


4 762 


5 940 


86,42 


5 155 


7 121 


1 616 


3 976 


55,84 


4 761 




European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)


6 005 


3 982 


6 269 


104,39 


3 718 


5 851 


2 272 


4 145 


70,85 


3 978 




The Left – European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL)


3 806 


2 266 


4 036 


106,05 


2 036 


3 790 


1 536 


3 060 


80,72 


2 266 




Non-attached Members


1 862 


1 041 


595 


31,94 


861 


1 726 


738 


429 


24,82 


1 041 





Total




65 000 




43 948 




55 904 




86,01 




46 611 




64 947 




22 568 




40 749 




62,74 




43 678 

















163.


Welcomes the fact that independent external auditors for the political groups issued only unqualified opinions for the financial year 2021;












164.


Recalls that these appropriations are intended to cover activities in connection with the Union’s political activities, and that political groups are responsible to Parliament for their use; is deeply concerned that these appropriations could be used to convey messages contrary to fundamental rights and freedoms or Union values; recalls in particular that Parliament condemns historical revisionism and calls for a common culture of remembrance that rejects the crimes of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the past; calls on Parliament’s administration to carefully scrutinise, even retroactively, any publication funded by political groups that do not comply with those values;





European political parties and European political foundations









165.


Notes the appointment of the new director of the Authority for the period starting 1 September 2021 until 31 August 2026;












166.


Recalls the key role of a lively and resilient European democracy underpinned by pluralism of political parties at Union level; emphasises therefore that a level playing field has to be ensured and compliance has to be controlled in full respect of procedural rights; welcomes in this context the essential work of the Authority which independently and in close cooperation with Parliament controls compliance of European political parties and foundations with the legal framework, provides transparency to the citizens, and contributes to the integrity of Parliament elections; urges the budgetary authority to ensure that the Authority is equipped with the necessary resources, in particular human and IT resources, including cybersecurity experts, to continue fulfilling its existing mandate including in light of evolving threats of foreign interference, especially to protect Union values, to counter abuses of personal data for electoral purposes and to identify the origin of donations, as well as any new tasks to be provided by the legislator; underlines in this context that the European election year 2024 will be pivotal for financial and functional integrity of European democracy and create a significant surcharge of work for the Authority;












167.


Notes in this regard that additional resources for democratic integrity have to be invested by the European Union in its entirety; recalls that the Authority is an independent body of the Union and consequently its appropriations and posts should be distinguished in a transparent manner from those of Parliament; reiterates thus its recommendation to create a separate section for the Authority in the general budget of the European Union, as expressed on its Resolution of 19 October 2022 on the draft general budget of the European Union for 2023;












168.


Welcomes the follow-up carried out by the Authority to the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement issued in January 2021 in the context of its case 1094/2020/DL, namely the improvement of the website allowing for an increase in the amount of information offered to the viewers, the link to Parliament’s website, and the publication of information about the Register of European political parties and foundations;












169.


Notes that, in 2021, the appropriations entered under budget item 4 0 2 were used as follows (10):











Party (2021)


Abbreviation


Own resources


EP final contribution (1)



Total revenue


EP contribution as % of reimbursable expenditure (max. 90 %)


Revenue surplus (transfer to reserve or loss)




European People’s Party


EPP


1 283 598 


7 737 916 


9 021 514 


90 


788 064 




Party of European Socialists


PES


977 280 


6 217 037 


7 194 317 


90 


645 859 




Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party


ALDE


734 661 


4 504 780 


5 239 441 


90 


857 838 




European Green Party


EGP


560 006 


3 597 971 


4 157 977 


90 


854 803 




Party of the European Left


EL


245 367 


1 557 308 


1 802 675 


90 


87 074 




European Democratic Party


PDE


112 014 


652 921 


764 935 


90 


120 482 




European Free Alliance


EFA


119 583 


812 993 


932 576 


90 


103 910 




European Conservatives and Reformists Party


ECR Party


483 292 


1 432 428 


1 915 720 


78 


–




European Christian Political Movement


ECPM


98 679 


708 660 


807 339 


90 


3 178 




Identity and Democracy party


ID Party


119 545 


573 595 


693 140 


90 


–





Total



 



4 734 025 




27 795 609 




32 529 634 



 



3 461 208 

















170.


Notes that, in 2021, the appropriations entered under budget item 4 0 3 were used as follows (11):












Foundation (2021)


Abbreviation


Affiliated to party


Own resources


EP final grant


Total revenue


EP grant as % of eligible costs (max. 95 %)


Revenue surplus (transfer to reserve or loss)




Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies


WMCES


EPP


480 822 


4 450 779 


4 931 601 


95,00 


161 217 




Foundation for European Progressive Studies


FEPS


PES


354 391 


4 897 963 


5 252 354 


95,00 


48 172 




European Liberal Forum


ELF


ALDE


369 813 


2 651 252 


3 021 065 


95,00 


221 975 




Green European Foundation


GEF


EGP


146 351 


2 156 106 


2 302 456 


95,00 


20 419 




Transform Europe


TE


EL


77 546 


1 218 962 


1 296 508 


94,83 


10 340 




Institute of European Democrats


IED


PDE


27 763 


504 172 


531 935 


95,00 


854 




Coppieters Foundation


Coppieters


EFA


86 417 


520 773 


607 190 


95,00 


45 208 




New Direction – Foundation for European Reform


ND


ECR Party


258 096 


1 519 566 


1 777 662 


95,00 


–




Sallux


SALLUX


ECPM


23 013 


366 409 


389 422 


95,00 


3 728 




Association pour l’Identite et Democratie Fondation


ID Foundation


ID Party


12 778 


660 075 


672 853 


95,00 


–





Total



 


 



1 836 990 




18 946 056 




20 783 046 



 



511 913 












(1)  Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 11).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).

(3)  Rules on Public Hearings, Bureau Decision of 18 June 2003.

(4)  Bureau Meeting of 13 March 2023 (PE-9/BUR/PV/2023-03) and Bureau decision 17/04/2023 (PE 422.534/BUR).

(5)  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).

(6)  This is based on a recommendation from Transparency International EU.

(7)  https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-1000-companies-have-curtailed-operations-russia-some-remain

(8)  Judgement of the General Court of 15 September 2021, Richard Ashworth and Others v European Parliament, T-720/19 to T-725/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:580.

(9)  All amounts in thousands of EUR.

(10)  All amounts in thousands of EUR.

(11)  All amounts in thousands of EUR.