title: 2012/566/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2010

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/156

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2010
   (2012/566/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2010, together with the College’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),

               —

               having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) (3), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Decision C(2011) 4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

               —

               having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

               —

               having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

               —

               having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

               —

               having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security,

               —

               having regard to the fourth progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the third progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament’s resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

               —

               having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010-1 July 2011,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0119/2012),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2010;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Director of the European Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 134.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63.

      (4)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.
   ANNEX

      EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OVER THE PAST YEARS

               European Police College

               2006

               2007

               2008

               2009

               Performance

               n.a.

               n.a.

               n.a.

                           —

                           Is concerned that the Court of Auditors identified severe short comings in the administrative and financial rules governing expenditure on the organisation of courses and seminars, mainly due to the revised College Financial Regulation never entered force

                           —

                           Recommends that the College provide direct access to its detailed budget

               Budgetary and financial management

                           —

                           Budget appropriations were not used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management

                           —

                           The system of procurement did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation

                           —

                           The College did not establish the necessary systems and procedures to enable it to prepare a financial report in compliance with the requirements of the framework Financial Regulation applicable to the Agencies

                           —

                           The College’s Financial Regulation foresees the need for detailed rules for the implementation of the regulation

                           —

                           The Agency does not comply with the principle of unity and accuracy of the budget (The budget did not include a contribution of EUR 1 500 000 received from the Commission in 2007 to implement a MEDA programme

                           —

                           The Agency does not comply with the principle of transparency

                           —

                           The high level of carry-overs (EUR 1 700 000) and cancellations of appropriations shows difficulties in budget management

                           —

                           Neither the provisional accounts nor the report on the budgetary and financial management had been prepared

                           —

                           The College’s Financial Regulation foresees the need for detailed rules for the implementation of the regulation

                           —

                           The system of procurement did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation

                           —

                           Cases were identified where appropriations were used to finance the private expenditure of some of the College’s staff

                           —

                           The Agency did not comply with the principle of annuality (i.e. more than EUR 2 700 000 of the 2008 payment appropriations had to be carried forward)

                           —

                           Weaknesses in the programming and the monitoring of the implementation of the budget

                           —

                           More than EUR 3 800 000 of the 2009 appropriations (43 % of total budget) was carried forward to 2010.

                           —

                           46 % of appropriations carried over from 2008 had to be cancelled, indicates severe and recurrent weaknesses in the programming and monitoring of the implementation of the budget, at odds with the principle of annuality

                           —

                           For 2008, 31 % of budget had to be carried over.

                           —

                           Significant delays and errors in the preparation of the 2009 provisional accounts

               Procurement procedure

               n.a.

               n.a.

               n.a.

               Concern with the persistent lack of compliance with the Financial Regulation with regard to Public Procurement rules. Significant amount of the total college’s budget contains irregularities.

               Human resources

               n.a.

               n.a.

               n.a.

                           —

                           Several weaknesses with regard to staff selection.

                           —

                           Finds unacceptable:

                                       —

                                       the thresholds that candidates had to meet were generally fixed after the evaluation and ranking of the candidates,

                                       —

                                       questions for interviews were often prepared after the examination of applications,

                                       —

                                       the documentation of procedures was inadequate

                           —

                           Is concerned about practices which are not allowed under Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU or are illegal

               Internal audit

               n.a.

                           —

                           Absence of internal control standards and ineffective budgetary monitoring

                           —

                           Cases were identified where appropriations were used to finance the private expenditure of some of the College’s staff

                           —

                           The audit of a sample of commitments showed that, in three cases, there was no audit trail to retrace the financial execution

                           —

                           No external control on these cases has been already carried out

               Notes the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the College should be further based on its performance throughout the year

          ---documentbreak---

               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/158

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2010
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2010, together with the College’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),

               —

               having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) (3), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

               —

               having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

               —

               having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

               —

               having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

               —

               having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security,

               —

               having regard to the fourth progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the third progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament’s resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

               —

               having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010-1 July 2011,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0119/2012),

               A.

               whereas the European Police College (‘the College’) was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the Framework Financial Regulation for agencies,

               B.

               whereas the Court of Auditors in its reports on the annual accounts of the College for the financial years 2006, 2007 and 2009, qualified its opinion with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions on the grounds that the procurement procedures did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation,

               C.

               whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2008, added an emphasis of matter to its opinion on the reliability of the accounts, without expressly qualifying it, and qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

               D.

               whereas in its Decision of 7 October 2010 Parliament refused to grant the Director of the College discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2008,

               E.

               whereas in its Decision of 10 May 2011 Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009 (5) and then granted it in its Decision of 25 October 2011 (6),

               F.

               whereas, for the first time since the College became an agency, the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2010, expressed no reservations about the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

               G.

               whereas in its report on the College’s MAP for 2010-2014 the Court of Auditors stated that the College is progressing according to the milestones established in its MAP,

               H.

               whereas in its note of 4 July 2011 to the Director of the College the IAS stated that, although the description in the progress report on the implementation of the College’s MAP remains fairly general, it gives a clear overview of the status of the different milestones and should thereby serve as a satisfactory basis for informing different stakeholders,

               I.

               whereas by Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 the Commission granted a derogation to the College from the provisions of Article 74b of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

               J.

               whereas the budget of the College for 2010 was EUR 7 800 000 compared to EUR 8 800 000 in 2009, which represents a decrease of 11,4 %; whereas the contribution of the Union to the budget of the College for 2010 was EUR 7 800 000 (7),

      Budget and Financial Management — General Observations

               1.

               Notes the College’s claim that the financial year 2010 was characterised by a lack of sufficient financial resources with a cut of EUR 1 000 000 in the Union contribution to the College’s budget; is surprised by this view, particularly in this time of crisis, as good management ensures correct and cost-efficient spending of the budget available and considering that 31,6 % of the College’s 2010 budget was carried over to 2011;

               2.

               Acknowledges however from the Commission that in 2009 the total Union contribution to the College amounted to EUR 8 800 000 out of which EUR 7 800 000 was financed from the 2009 budget and that the remaining balance of EUR 1 000 000 was actually financed from the 2007 assigned revenue stemming from the recovery of the College’s surplus for the year 2007; notes from the Commission that for 2010 it proposed to reduce the 2010 Union contribution to the College to the level of the 2009 voted appropriations, i.e. EUR 7 800 000 due to the 2008 low budget execution rate; encourages, therefore, the College to introduce a clear distinction between the different components of the Union contribution to the College’s budget in its yearly final annual accounts;

               3.

               Takes note from the College’s final annual accounts for the financial year 2010 that some deficiencies occurred in the preparation of individual budgets and commitments for courses and seminars which resulted in 2010 appropriations having been committed and paid to cover 2009 expenditure; reminds the College that this is at odds with the principle of annuality; calls on the College to take action in order to avoid a repeat of similar deficiencies in the future;

               4.

               Notes from the College’s Annual Activity Report 2010 that 99,56 % of the commitment appropriations have been committed; notes also that 46 % of the payment appropriations have been used but that the final figures for use of Title III (Operational Expenditure) were only due to be available at the end of 2011; takes note that the College’s 2010 final annual accounts indicate a rate of spent payment appropriations of 59,12 % in 2010;

               5.

               Acknowledges the measures taken by the new management and governance structure of the College to tackle its deficiencies in response to Parliament’s request for action, following the serious irregularities in the implementation of the budget for 2009;

               6.

               Draws attention to the fact that even though the Court of Auditors considered the transactions underlying the College’s annual accounts to be legal and regular, it also highlighted that, in respect of expenditure for organising courses and seminars, there was a lack of rigour in the College’s process for approving cost claims related to such activities, particularly concerning the completeness of supporting evidence; notes that in the reply from the College, mandatory requirements to submit a fully signed list of participants when submitting financial reports and cost claims were established by Decision 11/2011/GB of the Governing Board of the College of 10 March 2011;

               7.

               Takes note that, in accordance with Decision 11/2011/GB, the rules on reimbursement for the activities of the College have been revised to a large extent and that different measures for the strict implementation of the financial regulations and a rigorously disciplined approach concerning eligible costs, including those on the mandatory reporting, have been clarified;

               8.

               Deplores the fact that before the adoption of Decision 34/2010/GB of the Governing Board of the College of 29 September 2010, the cut-off dates for reimbursement of costs were not enforced, so that there was no substantial improvement in adhering to these cut-off dates; recalls that exceeding cut-off dates is one of the main factors hindering sound financial management; takes note of the fact that, in accordance with Decision 34/2010/GB, no reimbursement will take place of claims received after the cut-off date; asks the College to keep the discharge authority informed of the implementation of Decision 34/2010/GB;

               9.

               Acknowledges the statement by the College that the Commission cut the College’s 2010 budget by EUR 1 000 000 but stresses that the amount allocated for 2010 is the same as for 2009;

      Carry-over appropriations

               10.

               Notes from the College’s final annual accounts for the financial year 2010 that EUR 2 469 984,20 of the 2010 committed credits, which represents 31,6 % of the College’s 2010 budget, were carried forward to 2011; reminds the College that the situation is at odds with the principle of annuality;

               11.

               Regrets that the Court of Auditors does not mention the College’s appropriations carried forward in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2010;

               12.

               Is concerned that even though the Court of Auditors has been able to obtain reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the College for the 2010 financial year are, in all material aspects, reliable, the Court of Auditors observed that more than EUR 1 600 000, equivalent to 48 % of the appropriations carried over from 2009, had to be cancelled in 2010; reminds the College that this situation is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality and can be reduced by better programming and monitoring the implementation of its budget to minimise carry-over of appropriations; calls therefore on the College to take effective action in this respect;

               13.

               Takes, none the less, note of the College’s reply which stated that, to avoid a repeat of the situation described by the Court of Auditors, the carry forward of 2010 appropriations was subject to strict criteria to minimise cancellations in 2011;

               14.

               Notes from the College that in 2010 it introduced weekly financial management meetings to improve budgetary implementation and control and that in June 2011, all open commitments were reviewed to better monitor the budget consumption and optimise the 2011 budget implementation; calls therefore on the Court of Auditors and the IAS to assure Parliament on the College’s effective improvements on this issue and to indicate that all instruments for programming and monitoring are firmly in place;

      Procurement procedures

               15.

               Notes that on 8 June 2010 the College adopted a procurement manual for internal use as requested by Parliament in its discharges to the College for 2008; notes also that this manual entered into force on 1 July 2010 and that a public procurement coordinator has been appointed;

      Completeness of the internal recording of mission expenses

               16.

               Calls on the College to inform the discharge authority of the effective implementation of the IAS ‘very important’ recommendation on the completeness of the internal recording of mission expenses;

      The College’s activities

               17.

               Notes from the Court of Auditors that expenditure for organising courses and seminars represents a significant part of the College’s budget; acknowledges that there was a lack of rigour in the College’s process for approving cost claims related to such activities, particularly with regard to the completeness of supporting evidence;

               18.

               Takes, however, note from the College’s statement that it has improved reporting and control on its activities and has revised the process for approving cost claims and their supporting evidence, and notably with the:

                           —

                           establishment of mandatory requirements to submit fully signed participant’s lists when submitting financial reports and cost claims,

                           —

                           revision of the rules for reimbursement of College activities, which have been clarified,

                           —

                           strict enforcement of the cut-off date after which a reimbursement claim will not be accepted which was introduced on 29 September 2010,

                           —

                           organisation of a new training course for course managers to further improve the controls on courses as well as the quality of the payment files,

                           —

                           implementation in 2011 of ex-post verifications of the College’s courses,

                           —

                           verification of four 2010 activities in Sweden and six in the United Kingdom, of which one was related to a 2010 activity and five to 2011 activities,

                     calls on the IAS to provide the discharge authority with a thorough evaluation of these changes introduced by the College;

               19.

               Acknowledges that Commission Decision C(2011)4680 granted consent to the College’s request to modify its Financial Regulation by introducing an Article (Article 74c) which includes a derogation from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 concerning the exclusion for tender for the selection of educational experts in order to use experts from national police training colleges;

      Errors in the accounts

               20.

               Calls on the College to update Parliament on the level of implementation of the new 16 Internal Control Standards (ICS) of the Commission which were adopted by the Governing Board (GB) of the College replacing the former ICS;

      Appropriations used to finance private expenditure

               21.

               Acknowledges that an external ex-post check on appropriations used to finance private expenditure during 2007 and 2008 has been carried out and that the external reviewers considered that no further funds are recoverable in respect of this matter; notes from the College that the Recovery Order requiring the former Director to return the sum of GBP 2 014,94 (EUR 2 196,72) was cashed in December 2011; calls on the College to continue the recovery process until all funds are fully recovered;

      The College’s MAP for 2010-2014

               22.

               Acknowledges that the IAS assessed the implementation of the College’s Multi-annual Plan (MAP) 2010-2014 as was requested by the discharge authority; notes that by the end of September 2010, 19 of the 44 milestones had been completed whereas 18 milestones were on track with regard to the planned timetable and another 7 still await the initial start of implementation;

               23.

               Takes also note of the IAS statement that the description of some items in the MAP lack clarity and that the progress reporting is not always accurate enough to allow a clear understanding of what the individual milestones imply in terms of concrete actions; acknowledges moreover that the IAS identified overlap between some of the milestones which makes it difficult to assess the ultimate overall status of the related actions; acknowledges the College’s statement that the MAP was updated in accordance with the IAS recommendations and the improvements incorporated in the third progress report which was approved by the GB on 8 December 2010; calls on the IAS to confirm that the updated progress report on the College’s MAP reflects adequately their recommendations;

      Internal audit

               24.

               Acknowledges from the IAS that the very important recommendation on the completeness of the internal recording of mission expenses has been reported as implemented by the College and is currently under the IAS review; calls on the College and the IAS to inform the discharge authority of the results of the review;

               25.

               Takes note that the IAS performed an IT risk self-assessment with the objective of identifying and evaluating the key IT risks at the College; notes that the IAS identified the main risks in relation to: IT strategy, e-net system, data management and dependence upon individuals; calls therefore on the College to take appropriate action to address and prevent these risks;

               26.

               Notes that the internal audit function (IAC), advisory body for the GB, did not find any material mistakes in the College’s accounts for 2010 in its audit;

      Governance and structural deficiencies

               27.

               Underlines that the governance costs of the College are high compared to its activities; welcomes, therefore, the efforts of the College to reduce its governance expenditure at its 25th GB meeting of June 2011, when it was agreed that all GB committees should be abolished by 2012 and that all GB working groups should be critically analysed;

               28.

               Notes, also, from the College that the following measures are being implemented in the area of governance:

                           —

                           from 2012, the GB will only meet twice a year while urgent decisions in between meetings are to be taken by written procedure and discussed during web meetings,

                           —

                           the GB will focus only on the tasks that have been assigned to it by the College’s Founding Decision while the other tasks that previously overloaded the GB are to be taken over by the Director,

                           —

                           each Member State is encouraged to send a maximum of two delegates to each GB meeting,

                           —

                           the College is to take care of travel arrangements for participants eligible for reimbursement to ensure that the most economical means are used in order to cut out the reimbursement process after the meeting;

               29.

               Awaits with interest the submission by the Commission of the proposal for a change of legal basis for the College, as well as the outcome of the negotiations between Parliament and the Council;

               30.

               Notes moreover that the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the College concluded that there is a case for the College’s relocation;

               31.

               Welcomes Decision 24/2011/GB of the Governing Board of the College of 15 June 2011 disbanding existing committees as of 1 January 2012, thus reducing the overlap between different structures; calls on the GB to take drastic decisions concerning the existing working groups; recalls that Article 10(10) of Decision 2005/681/JHA provides that the GB may decide, ‘in cases of strict necessity’, to establish working groups to make recommendations and to develop and propose any other advisory tasks deemed necessary by the GB;

               32.

               Takes note of the response from the College that its Rules of Procedure were amended to limit the number of regular meetings of the GB to one per presidency and to restrict the size of national delegations, as each Member State is encouraged to send a maximum of two delegates to each meeting;

               33.

               Notes that the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the College should continue to be based on its performance throughout the year;

               34.

               Draws attention to its recommendations from previous discharge reports, as set out in the Annex to this resolution;

               35.

               Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2012 (8) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 134.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63.

      (4)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

      (5)  OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 260.

      (6)  OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 17.

      (7)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010, p. 1047.

      (8)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0164 (see page 388 of this Official Journal).


title: 2009/201/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 22 April 2008 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006

text:
               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/109

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006
   (2009/201/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006, together with the Centre's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   having regard to the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council of 10 February 1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (4), and in particular Article 12a thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0110/2008),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre's budget for the financial year 2006;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the Resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the Resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

            The Secretary-General

         Harald RØMER

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 46.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 86.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.
    ---documentbreak---

               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/110

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2006, together with the Centre's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   having regard to the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council of 10 February 1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (4), and in particular Article 12a thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0110/2008),

               A.

               whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2006 are reliable, and the underlying transactions, subject to one reservation, are legal and regular,

               B.

               whereas on 24 April 2007 Parliament granted the Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre's budget for the financial year 2005 (6), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision inter alia:

                           —

                           recalled that appropriations for operating activities were under-utilised (cancellation of 15 % of commitment appropriations, 20 % of payment appropriations and 15 % of appropriations carried over), in particular after the reorganisation of procedures for awarding contracts,

                           —

                           demanded the full application of the principle of the segregation of the duties of authorising officer and accounting officer to avoid situations as in 2005 where some of the accounting officer's duties were performed by departments for which the authorising officer was responsible,

                           —

                           insisted that the Centre should apply standard recruitment procedures in order to avoid the situation as in 2005 where an important management post was filled through an internal selection procedure when an external procedure would have provided a wider range of candidates,

                           —

                           expressed concern about the very high rate of irregularities found by the Court of Auditors in the examined contracts, where out of six all but one were affected by irregularities;

         General points which relate to horizontal issues affecting the EU agencies and which therefore also have a bearing on the discharge procedure for each individual agency

               1.

               Notes that the budgets of the 24 agencies and other satellite bodies audited by the Court of Auditors totalled EUR 1 080,5 million in 2006 (the biggest being that of the European Agency for Reconstruction at EUR 271 million and the smallest being that of the European Police College (CEPOL) at EUR 5 million);

               2.

               Points out that the range of external EU bodies subject to audit and discharge now includes not only traditional regulatory agencies but also executive agencies set up to implement specific programmes, and will in the near future also extend to joint undertakings set up as public-private partnerships (joint technology initiatives);

               3.

               Observes as regards the Parliament that the number of agencies subject to the discharge procedure has evolved as follows: financial year 2000: 8; 2001: 10; 2002: 11; 2003: 14; 2004: 14; 2005: 16; 2006: 20 regulatory agencies and 2 executive agencies (not including 2 agencies which are audited by the Court of Auditors but subject to an internal discharge process);

               4.

               Concludes therefore that the auditing/discharge process has become cumbersome and disproportionate compared to the relative size of the agencies'/satellite bodies' budgets; instructs its competent committee to undertake a wide-ranging review of the discharge process as regards agencies and satellite bodies with a view to devising a simpler and more rational approach, bearing in mind the ever-growing number of bodies each requiring a separate discharge report in future years;

         Fundamental considerations

               5.

               Requests that the Commission provide clear explanations regarding the following elements before the creation of a new agency or reform of an existing agency: agency type, objectives of the agency, internal governance structure, products, services, key procedures, target group, clients and stakeholders of the agency, formal relationship with external actors, budget responsibility, financial planning, and personnel and staffing policy;

               6.

               Requests that each agency be governed by a yearly performance agreement which is formulated by the agency and the responsible DG and which should contain the main objectives for the coming year, a financial framework and clear indicators to measure performance;

               7.

               Requests that the performance of the agencies be regularly (and on an ad-hoc basis) audited by the Court of Auditors or another independent auditor; considers that this should not be limited to traditional elements of financial management and the proper use of public money, but should also cover administrative efficiency and effectiveness and should include a rating of the financial management of each agency;

               8.

               Takes the view that in the case of agencies which are continually overestimating their respective budget needs, technical abatement should be made on the basis of vacant posts; is of the opinion that this will lead in the long run to less assigned revenue for the agencies and therefore also to lower administrative costs;

               9.

               Notes that it is a serious problem that a number of agencies is criticised for not following rules on public procurement, the Financial Regulation, the Staff Regulations, etc.; considers that the principal reason for this is that most regulations and the Financial Regulation are designed for bigger institutions and that most of the small agencies do not have the critical mass to be able to cope with these regulatory requirements; therefore asks the Commission to look for a rapid solution in order to enhance the effectiveness by grouping the administrative functions of various agencies together, in order to achieve this critical mass (taking into consideration the necessary changes in the basic regulations governing the agencies and their budgetary independence), or urgently to draft specific rules for the agencies (in particular implementing rules for the agencies) which allow them to be in full compliance;

               10.

               Insists that the Commission, when drafting the Preliminary Draft Budget, take into consideration the results of budget implementation by the individual agencies in former years, in particular in year n-1, and revise the budget requested by the particular agency accordingly; invites its competent committee to respect this revision and, if not undertaken by the Commission, to revise itself the budget in question to a realistic level matching the absorption and implementation capacity of the agency in question;

               11.

               Recalls its decision on discharge in respect of the financial year 2005, in which it invited the Commission to present every five years a study on the added value of every existing agency; invites all relevant institutions in the case of a negative evaluation of the added value of an agency to take the necessary steps by reformulating the mandate of that agency or by closing it; notes that there has not been one single evaluation undertaken by the Commission in 2007; insists that the Commission should present at least five such evaluations before the decision on discharge in respect of the financial year 2007, starting with the oldest agencies;

               12.

               Is of opinion that recommendations of the Court of Auditors should be promptly implemented and the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be aligned with their real cash requirements; considers further that the amendments to the general Financial Regulation should be incorporated into the agencies' framework financial regulation and into their various specific financial regulations;

         Presentation of reporting data

               13.

               Notes that there is no standard approach among the agencies with regard to the presentation of their activities during the financial year in question and of their accounts and reports on budgetary and financial management, nor to the question as to whether a declaration of assurance should be drawn up by the agency's director; observes that not all agencies clearly distinguish between (a) presenting the agency's work to the public; and (b) technical reporting on budgetary and financial management;

               14.

               Notes that while the Commission's standing instructions for the preparation of activity reports do not expressly require the agency to draw up a declaration of assurance, many directors have nonetheless done so for 2006, in one case including an important reservation;

               15.

               Recalls paragraph 27 of its resolution of 12 April 2005 (7), inviting the directors of the agencies from now on to accompany their annual activity report, which is presented together with financial and management information, with a declaration of assurance concerning the legality and regularity of operations, similar to the declarations signed by the Directors-General of the Commission;

               16.

               Asks the Commission to amend its standing instructions to the agencies accordingly;

               17.

               Suggests in addition that the Commission should work with the agencies towards producing a harmonised model applicable to all agencies and satellite bodies clearly distinguishing between:

                           —

                           an annual report intended for a general readership on the body's operations, work and achievements,

                           —

                           financial statements and a report on implementation of the budget,

                           —

                           an activity report along the lines of the activity reports of the Directors-General of the Commission,

                           —

                           a declaration of assurance signed by the body's director, together with any reservations or observations which he considers it appropriate to draw to the attention of the discharge authority;

         General findings by the Court of Auditors

               18.

               Notes the Court's finding (Annual Report, paragraph 10.29 (8)) that the disbursement of subsidies paid by the Commission from the Community budget is not based on sufficiently justified estimates of the agencies' cash requirements and that this, combined with the size of carry-overs, leads them to hold sizeable cash balances; notes further the Court's recommendation that the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be in line with their real cash requirements;

               19.

               Notes that at the end of 2006 14 agencies had still to implement the ABAC accounting system (Annual Report, footnote to paragraph 10.31);

               20.

               Notes the Court's remark (Annual Report, paragraph 1.25) concerning accrued charges for untaken leave which are accounted for by some agencies; points out that the Court of Auditors has qualified its statement of assurance in the case of three agencies (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), CEPOL and the European Railway Agency) for the financial year 2006 (2005: Cedefop, European Food Safety Authority, European Agency for Reconstruction);

         Internal audit

               21.

               Recalls that in accordance with Article 185(3) of the Financial Regulation the Internal Auditor of the Commission is also the internal auditor of the regulatory agencies receiving grants charged to the EU budget; points out that the Internal Auditor reports to each agency's management board and director;

               22.

               Draws attention to the reservation entered in the Internal Auditor's Annual Activity Report for 2006 as follows:

         ‘The Internal Auditor of the Commission is not in a position to properly fulfil his obligation assigned by Article 185 of the Financial Regulation as internal auditor of the Community bodies due to a lack of staff resources.’;

               23.

               Notes, however, the Internal Auditor's remark in his activity report for 2006 that as from 2007, with the additional staff resources granted by the Commission to the Internal Audit Service (IAS), all regulatory agencies in operation will be subject to internal audit work on an annual basis;

               24.

               Notes the ever-growing number of regulatory and executive agencies and joint undertakings required to be audited by the IAS under Article 185 Financial Regulation; asks the Commission to inform its competent committee as to whether the staff resources at the IAS's disposal will be sufficient to conduct an annual audit of all such bodies in the coming years;

               25.

               Observes that Article 72(5) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 requires each agency to send each year to the discharge authority and the Commission a report drawn up by its director summarising the number and type of internal audits conducted by the internal auditor, the recommendations made and the action taken on these recommendations; asks the agencies to indicate whether this is done and, if so, how;

               26.

               Takes note, as regards internal audit capability, especially in relation to the smaller agencies, of a proposal made by the Internal Auditor before Parliament's competent committee on 14 September 2006 that smaller agencies should be authorised to buy in internal audit services from the private sector;

         Evaluation of agencies

               27.

               Recalls the joint statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission (9) negotiated at the conciliation before the ECOFIN budget Council of 13 July 2007 calling for (i) a list of agencies which the Commission intends to assess; and (ii) a list of the agencies already assessed, together with a summary of the major findings;

         Disciplinary procedures

               28.

               Notes that, because of their size, individual agencies have difficulty in setting up ad-hoc disciplinary boards composed of staff at the appropriate career grade and that the Commission's IDOC (Investigation and Disciplinary Office) is not competent for agencies; calls on the agencies to consider an inter-agency disciplinary board;

         Draft Interinstitutional Agreement

               29.

               Recalls the draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies presented by the Commission (COM(2005) 59), which was intended to create a horizontal framework for the creation, structure, operation, evaluation and control of the European regulatory agencies; notes that the draft represents a useful initiative in the effort to rationalise the creation and running of agencies; notes the statement in the Commission's 2006 synthesis report (paragraph 3.1, COM(2007) 274) that although progress in negotiations stalled after publication of the draft, discussions on substance were relaunched in the Council at the end of 2006; regrets that it has not been possible to make further progress towards adoption;

               30.

               Welcomes therefore the Commission's commitment to bring forward a communication on the future of the regulatory agencies during the course of 2008;

         Self-financed agencies

               31.

               Recalls that for the two self-financing agencies, discharge is given to the director by the administrative board; notes that both have significant accumulated surpluses from fee income carried over from previous years figures, as follows:

                           —

                           Office for Harmonization of the Internal Market cash and cash equivalents: EUR 281 million (10),

                           —

                           Community Plant Variety Office cash and cash equivalents: EUR 18 million (11);

         Specific points

               32.

               Expresses its satisfaction at the proper implementation of the budget for the financial year 2006;

               33.

               Notes that the Centre has been endeavouring to strengthen and develop its internal supervision system by enhancing the effectiveness of its function and operational activities;

               34.

               Believes that the Centre plays an important role in disseminating information at local, regional, national, and Community level, and in relation to civil society; urges it to become more effective still in fulfilling its purpose; again applauds the work carried out by the Centre, which is performing the tasks entrusted to it unstintingly and to invaluable effect;

               35.

               Notes that for the financial year 2006 the Court of Auditors qualified its statement of assurance with the observation that, although in its previous year's report it had emphasised the absence of a legal basis for a decision of the Centre's Appeal Committee to grant to an agent compensation for non-pecuniary harm not provided for in the Staff Regulations, that compensation was nevertheless paid in 2006;

               36.

               Takes note of the Centre's reply that the legality of the contested decision has since been confirmed by the Commission's Legal Service and of the subsequent information from the Court of Auditors that the issue has been resolved with the result that the Court's qualified remark should now be interpreted as an observation about management risk;

               37.

               Draws attention to other observations by the Court of Auditors in its report on the Centre, concerning:

                           —

                           a high proportion of appropriations carried over or cancelled, together with a high number of budget transfers,

                           —

                           the absence of a suitable inventory procedure for identifying, registering and capitalising assets,

                           —

                           incomplete documentation of internal control processes,

                           —

                           the absence of a legal basis for the reimbursement of school fees for children of some of the Centre's agents,

                           —

                           a lack of effective control as to whether documents submitted by job applicants in support of their professional experience offer genuine proof,

                           —

                           irregularities in procurement procedures;

               38.

               Welcomes the Centre's appointment of an internal auditor in December 2006;

               39.

               Notes the statement in Centre's accounts that the audit report of the IAS of December 2006 confirmed that procedures are now regular and earlier IAS recommendations either fully implemented or well on the way to full implementation;

               40.

               Notes the information contained in the annual report that in 2006 major efforts were undertaken to improve the internal control environment and implement the audit recommendations; welcomes the statement in the annual report that the 2007 annual management plan includes for the first time a systematic ex-ante risk management mechanism;

               41.

               Notes that OLAF's findings relating to specific contracts between 2001 and 2005 have been transmitted to the competent Greek judicial authorities;

               42.

               Notes the creation of a framework for cooperation between Centre and European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions signed in November 2006 by the Directors of the two agencies with the aim of ensuring the use of available research funding in areas of common interest;

               43.

               Notes that the Centre has an entry in the assets side of its balance sheet corresponding to land and buildings (EUR 4,57 million), together with an accumulated surplus of EUR 5 million under liabilities.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 46.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 86.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

      (6)  OJ L 187, 15.7.2008, p. 78.

      (7)  Resolution of the European Parliament containing the comments accompanying the decision on the discharge to the Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2003 (OJ L 196, 27.7.2005, p. 69).

      (8)  OJ C 273, 15.11.2007, p. 1.

      (9)  Council document DS 605/1/07 Rev1.

      (10)  Source: report on the annual accounts of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market for the financial year 2006, together with the Office's replies (OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 141).

      (11)  Source: report on the annual accounts of the Community Plant Variety Office for the financial year 2006, together with the Office's replies (OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 135).