title: 2012/612/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010#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 Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/334

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010
   (2012/612/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06086/2012 - C7-0050/2012),

               —

               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 Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (3), and in particular Article 11(4) 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 Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0108/2012),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’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 Executive Director of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines, 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 368, 16.12.2011, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 30, 4.2.2008, p. 38.

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

      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 Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06086/2012 - C7-0050/2012),

                  —

                  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 Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (3), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to the Financial Rules of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines adopted by Decision of its Governing Board on 2 February 2009,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0108/2012),

                  A.

                  whereas the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (‘the Joint Undertaking’) was set up in December 2007 for a period of 10 years to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development process with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector produces more effective and safer innovative medicines,

                  B.

                  whereas the Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously on 16 November 2009,

                  C.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

                  D.

                  whereas the maximum contribution for the period of 10 years from the Union to the Joint Undertaking is EUR 1 000 000 000 to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Research Framework Programme,

                  E.

                  whereas the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 amounted to EUR 107 150 584,

         Budget and Financial Management

                  1.

                  Notes with concern that the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 and the implementation plan were adopted by the Governing Board only on 16 March 2010 and therefore, for almost the entire first quarter of the year, the Joint Undertaking was obliged to use provisional twelfths budget rule to make payments;

                  2.

                  Is concerned that the members of the Joint Undertaking could not establish and agree in due time the scientific priorities to be included in the annual implementation plan which delayed the launch of the 2010 annual call for proposals until 22 October 2010;

                  3.

                  Notes that the 2010 final budget of the Joint Undertaking included commitment appropriations of EUR 107 150 584 and payment appropriations of EUR 29 009 840; notes that the utilisation rates for available commitment and payment appropriations were as low as 6 % and 35 %, respectively;

                  4.

                  Is concerned about the low implementation rate of the budget and, moreover, about the underlying activities of the Joint Undertaking; underlines that the cash balance at year-end stood at EUR 70 731 612,03 representing 65 % of the available payment appropriations in 2010;

                  5.

                  Notes that the Joint Undertaking argued that the low utilisation rates for commitment and payment appropriations and the high level of the cash balance were due to:

                              —

                              the delays in the definition of the Joint Undertaking’s scientific priorities and call topics, which led to delays in the publication of calls for proposals and in the related evaluation and selection process,

                              —

                              the pre-financing payments to successful Call 3 collaborative projects which were made in 2011 instead of 2010 as originally budgeted because of delays within the selected consortia which affected the signature of grant agreements,

                        calls, nevertheless, on the Joint Undertaking and its members to take appropriate actions to ensure a timely definition of the scientific priorities and call topics and to enable the budget to be balanced in future financial years;

         Evaluation of contributions in kind

                  6.

                  Recalls that the Joint Undertaking was set up in December 2007 and started to work autonomously on 16 November 2009; expresses its grave concern that the methodology for evaluating contributions in-kind to be defined in the Joint Undertaking’s internal rules and procedures in compliance with its financial rules has not yet been approved by the Governing Board and therefore the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) members of the Joint Undertaking were unable to report on the costs incurred during the first reporting period as established in the grant agreements;

                  7.

                  Notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that there are ongoing consultations on the methodology to be used for the evaluation of in-kind contributions by member companies of EFPIA in the Joint Undertaking’s projects and that individual reports on the in-kind contributions will be submitted following the approval by the Governing Board of the revised model grant agreement; urges the Joint Undertaking and its Governing Board to update the discharge authority about this matter;

         Procurement Procedures

                  8.

                  Establishes from its Annual Activity Report (AAR) that the Joint Undertaking has adopted in 2010 the ‘IMI Guidelines for low-value procurement procedures’ which aim to facilitate its compliance with the General Guide for Public Procurement of the European Commission and reflects the Public Procurement threshold levels set in its Financial Rules for Procurement Procedures;

                  9.

                  Notes, in addition, that during 2010, the Joint Undertaking had two high-value Procurement Procedures, for the IT infrastructure and ex-post audits respectively, which led to framework contracts being published in the Official Journal; underlines that these procedures were launched jointly with other Joint Undertakings; finds the Joint Undertakings’ initiative to issue joint procurement procedures interesting; believes that it would enable the Joint Undertakings to realise economies of scale and to save taxpayers’ money; encourages the Joint Undertakings, therefore, to resort as often as possible to joint procurement procedures;

                  10.

                  Acknowledges that the Joint Undertaking launched low value procurement procedures for the development of its website, for the organisation of communication events held during the year, and for the purchase of office furniture in the new premises;

                  11.

                  Notes that as part of its legal obligations, the Joint Undertaking made available on its website a list of awarded contracts; notices that the list presents the contracts awarded from the creation of the Joint Undertaking until 31 October 2010; urges the Joint Undertaking to regularly update its list of contracts awarded;

         Call for Proposals and Projects Negotiations

                  12.

                  Recalls that the Joint Undertaking issued a third call for proposals which was launched on 22 October 2010;

                  13.

                  Acknowledges that in 2010 the Joint Undertaking finalised the negotiation process for the second call for proposals and started to receive and pay cost claims from the beneficiaries participating in the projects funded under the first call for proposals, managed by the Commission, and launched on April 2008;

                  14.

                  Notes from the Joint Undertaking’s AAR that, in the framework of the second call for proposals, independent experts participated in the evaluation panels except for final assessment and without voting rights and that in addition the Executive Office of the Joint Undertaking invited independent observers to the two-stage evaluation process; calls on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about the verification mechanisms that it implements to ensure the full independence of experts and observers and therefore to mitigate the risks of conflict of interests during the evaluation of tenders;

                  15.

                  Takes note from the AAR that the independent observers are responsible for issuing a report for each stage of the evaluation process; notes also that an action plan based on the Independent Observers’ Report of the Evaluation of Stage Two was published in September 2010 and that the Executive Office of the Joint Undertaking is implementing these actions for the third call for proposals; asks the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority of the level of implementation of each of the measures included in the action plan;

                  16.

                  Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that several implementing measures have been put in place in its operational processes to prevent conflicts of interest; notes in particular that any individual involved in the activities of the Joint Undertaking has to comply with well-established and enforced prescriptive rules; calls on the Joint Undertaking to develop an Action Plan with concrete measures and deadlines to prevent conflicts of interest and strengthen transparency and to provide it to the discharge authority;

         Internal control systems

                  17.

                  Urges the Joint Undertaking to complete its internal controls and financial information systems; calls on the Joint Undertaking in particular, to establish and document important elements of its internal control system like the accounting procedures and controls relating to the closure of accounts and the recognition and measurement of the operational expenditure;

                  18.

                  Calls, in addition, on the Joint Undertaking and in particular its Accounting Officer to formalise and validate the underlying business processes in due time as required by the financial rules; notes the Joint Undertaking’s response that validation of the underlying business processes supporting the accounting system was concluded in June 2011; calls on the Joint Undertaking to explain this delay to the discharge authority;

                  19.

                  Notes the Court of Auditors’ finding that the Joint Undertaking has an adequate level of IT governance and practice for its size and mission; stresses, however, that the formalisation of policies and procedures in strategic IT planning and monitoring cycle, IT Risk management and Business Continuity Plan and Disaster Recovery Plan is lagging behind; urges the Joint Undertaking to develop an Action Plan with concrete measures and deadlines to speed up the formalisation of policies and procedures in the aforementioned areas and to report the progress achieved to the discharge authority;

                  20.

                  Points out that the ex-post audit strategy of the Joint Undertaking was adopted by a Governing Board decision on 14 December 2010; urges the Joint Undertaking to implement the strategy without delay by carrying out on-the-spot checks and financial audits among the participants of the Research Activities funded by the Joint Undertaking and to submit to the discharge authority an annual report drawn up by its Executive Director with the conclusions of such audits, the recommendations made and the financial corrections imposed;

         Internal Audit

                  21.

                  Takes note that the Joint Undertaking’s Financial Rules have not yet been amended to include the provision referring to the powers of the Commission’s internal auditor regarding the general budget as a whole;

                  22.

                  Notes, however, that the Commission and the Joint Undertaking have taken action to ensure that the respective operational roles of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS) and the Joint Undertaking’s internal auditing function are clearly defined;

                  23.

                  Notes comments from the Joint Undertaking that the need to further clarify the role of the IAS in the Joint Undertaking’s Financial Rules will be assessed after the finalisation of the on-going revision of the Framework Financial Regulation;

                  24.

                  Ascertains from the Joint Undertaking’s 2010 AAR that it established its own Internal Audit Capability (IAC) in November 2010;

                  25.

                  Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking’s reply to the Court of Auditors that the roles of the Joint Undertaking’s internal audit function and the IAS were clarified and formalised through the approval, in March 2011, of the IAS and IAC Audit Charters; also takes note that a coordinated strategic audit plan for the period 2012-2014 is also being prepared to ensure that the impact of planned audits is optimised and any duplication of audit work between the IAS and IAC is minimised; calls therefore on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about the state of preparation and implementation of the strategic audit plan for the period 2012-2014;

         Performance

                  26.

                  Notes that the Commission commissioned an interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Joint Undertaking’s Founding Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 and that the review focused on the quality, efficiency and contribution of the Joint Undertaking towards the achievement of set objectives;

                  27.

                  Acknowledges that the interim evaluation identified certain weaknesses:

                              —

                              internal governance structures are not yet working optimally,

                              —

                              proactive communication activities have been lacking,

                              —

                              the advisory potential of several stakeholders is not fully exploited,

                              —

                              the lack of identified and used key performance indicators by the Joint Undertaking risks making the output of the whole initiative diffuse,

                        notes that the interim evaluation was concluded in December 2010 and that it formulated seven recommendations; duly takes note that the Joint Undertaking has committed to address and follow-up on the conclusions of the interim evaluation;

                  28.

                  Requires the Joint Undertaking, therefore, to communicate to the discharge authority the measures adopted, with their implementation timeframe, to address the recommendations of the interim review and to provide regular updates on the progress achieved;

         Lack of host State agreement

                  29.

                  Reiterates that the Joint Undertaking should rapidly conclude a host agreement with Belgium concerning office accommodation, privileges and immunities and other support to be provided by Belgium to it as provided by its Founding Regulation (EC) No 73/2008;

         Horizontal observations on the Joint Undertakings

                  30.

                  Underlines that seven Joint Undertakings have so far been established by the Commission under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; notes that six Joint Undertakings (IMI, Artemis, ENIAC, Clean Sky, FCH and ITER-F4E) are in the research area under the Commission’s DGs RTD and INFSO and one is charged with developing the new air traffic management system (SESAR) in the transport domain whose activities are supervised by DG MOVE;

                  31.

                  Notes that the total indicative resources deemed necessary for the Joint Undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 21 793 000 000;

                  32.

                  Notes that the total Union contribution deemed necessary for the Joint Undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 11 489 000 000;

                  33.

                  Notes that, for the financial year 2010, the overall Union contribution to the budget of the Joint Undertakings amounted to EUR 505 000 000;

                  34.

                  Calls on the Commission to provide the discharge authority annually with consolidated information on the total annual funding per Joint Undertaking made from the general budget of the Union in order to ensure transparency and clarity on the use of the Union’s funds and restore trust among the European taxpayers;

                  35.

                  Welcomes the initiative of Artemis to include information in its AAR on the monitoring and review of its ongoing projects; believes this is a practice that should be followed by the other Joint Undertakings;

                  36.

                  Recalls that Joint Undertakings are public-private partnerships and that as a consequence public and private interests are intertwined; is of the opinion that under the circumstances the likelihood of conflicts of interest should not be dismissed but addressed properly; calls therefore on the Joint Undertakings to inform the discharge authority on the verification mechanisms which exist in their respective structures to enable a proper management and prevention of conflicts of interest;

                  37.

                  Notes, with the notable exception of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy, that Joint Undertakings are relatively small structures and geographically-concentrated; believes therefore that they should pool their resources where possible;

                  38.

                  Calls on the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with a follow-up on the comments it has made for each of the Joint Undertakings in their respective report on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011;

                  39.

                  Invites the Court of Auditors to provide, within a reasonable deadline, a special report to Parliament, on the added value of the establishment of the Joint Undertakings for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes; further notes that the same report should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the Joint Undertakings’ establishment.

         (1)  OJ C 368, 16.12.2011, p. 17.

         (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ L 30, 4.2.2008, p. 38.

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


title: 2011/94/EU: Council Decision of 25 May 2010 on the signing of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States#Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 38/33

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 25 May 2010
   on the signing of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States
   (2011/94/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               By its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.

               (2)

               On behalf of the Union, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement on certain aspects of air services (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’) with the United Mexican States in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision of 5 June 2003.

               (3)

               The Agreement negotiated by the Commission should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 25 May 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. SEBASTIÁN

      AGREEMENT
      on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States
      THE EUROPEAN UNION,
      of the one part, and
      THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES,
      of the other part,
      (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Parties’), in conformity with their respective competences;
      HAVING REGARD TO the provisions of the bilateral air service agreements between various Member States of the European Union and the United Mexican States,
      NOTING that on 5 June 2003, the Member States of the European Union authorised the European Commission to amend certain provisions of their bilateral air service agreements in an agreement between the European Union and third countries,
      NOTING that the European Union has exclusive competence with respect to several aspects that may be included in bilateral air service agreements which Member States of the European Union enter into or have entered into with third countries,
      RECOGNISING the importance of updating the relationship between Member States of the European Union and the United Mexican States as regards air services, so as to provide a solid legal basis for air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States and to ensure the continuity of such air services,
      UNDERLINING their interest in promoting free competition in the field of air services, and avoiding airlines entering into agreements the purpose of which is to hinder, restrict or distort competition,
      NOTING that it is not the purpose of the European Union to affect the balance between European Union air carriers and air carriers of the United Mexican States, nor to amend the provisions of existing bilateral air service agreements concerning traffic rights,
      HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
      Article 1
      General provisions
      1.   References to nationals of a Member State of the European Union that is a Party to any of the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I shall be understood as references to nationals of the Member States of the European Union.
      2.   References to air carriers from a Member State of the European Union that is a Party to each of the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I shall be understood as references to air carriers designated by that Member State of the European Union.
      3.   This Agreement modifies certain provisions of existing bilateral air service agreements listed in Annex I, without affecting existing traffic rights.
      Article 2
      Designation by a Member State of the European Union
      1.   The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall supersede the corresponding provisions of the Articles listed in points (a) and (b) respectively of Annex II, as regards the designation of an air carrier by a Member State of the European Union, the authorisations and permissions granted by the United Mexican States, and the refusal, revocation, suspension or limitation of the authorisations or permissions of the air carrier, respectively.
      2.   Upon receipt of a designation by a Member State of the European Union, the United Mexican States shall grant the relevant authorisations and permissions without delay, provided that:

                  (a)

                  the air carrier is established in the territory of the designating Member State of the European Union under the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and has a valid operating licence in accordance with the law of the European Union; and

                  (b)

                  effective regulatory control of the air carrier is exercised and maintained by the Member State of the European Union responsible for issuing its Air Operator’s Certificate and the relevant aeronautical authority is clearly identified in the designation; and

                  (c)

                  the air carrier is owned, directly or through majority ownership, and is effectively controlled by Member States of the European Union or nationals of such countries or by the countries listed in Annex III or nationals of those other countries.

            3.   The United Mexican States may refuse, revoke, suspend or limit the authorisations or permissions granted to an air carrier designated by a Member State of the European Union where one of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 is not met.
      In exercising the rights under this paragraph, the United Mexican States shall not discriminate between air carriers from the European Union on the grounds of nationality.
      Article 3
      Safety
      1.   The provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article shall complement the Articles listed in Annex II, point (c).
      2.   Where a Member State of the European Union has designated an air carrier whose regulatory control is exercised and maintained by another Member State of the European Union, the rights of the United Mexican States under the safety provisions of the agreement between the Member State of the European Union that has designated the air carrier and the United Mexican States shall apply equally in respect of the adoption, exercise and maintenance of safety standards by that other Member State of the European Union and in respect of the operating authorisation for that air carrier.
      Article 4
      Compatibility with competition rules
      1.   None of the bilateral agreements between the United Mexican States and Member States of the European Union may:

                  (a)

                  favour the adoption of agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices that prevent, distort or restrict competition;

                  (b)

                  reinforce the effects of any such agreement, decision or concerted practice; or

                  (c)

                  delegate to private economic operators the responsibility for taking measures that prevent, distort or restrict competition.

            2.   Any provisions contained in the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I that are incompatible with paragraph 1 shall not apply.
      Article 5
      Annexes to the Agreement
      The Annexes to this Agreement shall form an integral part thereof.
      Article 6
      Revision and amendment
      The Parties may, at any time, revise or amend this Agreement by mutual consent, in writing. Those modifications shall enter into force in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7(1) of this Agreement.
      Article 7
      Entry into force
      1.   This Agreement shall enter into force thirty (30) days after the date of the last note with which the Parties provide written notification, via diplomatic channels, that their respective internal procedures necessary for that effect have been concluded.
      2.   This Agreement shall apply to the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I, point (b) once the latter have entered into force.
      3.   This Agreement shall prevail in the event of a difference between the provisions of this Agreement and the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I.
      Article 8
      Termination
      1.   In the event of the termination of any of the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I, all provisions of this Agreement relating to the said agreement shall terminate simultaneously.
      2.   In the event of the termination of all of the bilateral agreements listed in Annex I, this Agreement shall terminate at the same time as the last of those agreements.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Agreement.
         DONE in duplicate at Brussels, on the fifteenth day of December in the year two thousand and ten, in the Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, German, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish and Swedish languages, each text being authentic. In the case of divergence, the Spanish text shall take precedence.

            За Европейския съюз
            Por la Unión Europea
            Za Evropskou unii
            For Den Europæiske Union
            Für die Europäische Union
            Euroopa Liidu nimel
            Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση
            For the European Union
            Pour l'Union européenne
            Per l'Unione europea
            Eiropas Savienības vārdā –
            Europos Sąjungos vardu
            Az Európai Unió részéről
            Għall-Unjoni Ewropea
            Voor de Europese Unie
            W imieniu Unii Europejskiej
            Pela União Europeia
            Pentru Uniunea Europeană
            Za Európsku úniu
            Za Evropsko unijo
            Euroopan unionin puolesta
            För Europeiska unionen

            За Съединените мексикански щати
            Por los Estados Unidos Mexicanos
            Za Spojené státy mexické
            For De Forenede Mexicanske Stater
            Für die Vereinigten Mexikanischen Staaten
            Mehhiko Ühendriikide nimel
            Για τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες του Μεξικού
            For the United Mexican States
            Pour les Etats-Unis mexicains
            Per gli Stati Uniti messicani
            Meksikas Savienoto Valstu vārdā –
            Meksikos Jungtinių Valstijų vardu
            A Mexikói Egyesült Államok részéről
            Għall-Istati Uniti Messikani
            Voor de Verenigde Mexicaanse Staten
            W imieniu Meksykańskich Stanów Zjednoczonych
            Pelos Estados Unidos Mexicanos
            Pentru Statele Unite Mexicane
            Za Spojené štáty mexické
            Za Združene države mehike
            Meksikon yhdysvaltojen puolesta
            För Mexikos förenta stater

         ANNEX I

            LIST OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 OF THIS AGREEMENT

                     (a)

                     Air service agreements between the United Mexican States and Member States of the European Union which, at the date of signature of this Agreement, have been concluded and/or signed:

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Federal Government of Austria, signed at Vienna, Austria on 27 March 1995, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Austria Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, signed at Mexico City, on 26 April 1999, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Belgium Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, signed at Mexico City, on 14 August 1990, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Czech Republic Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the French Republic, signed at Paris, France, on 18 May 1993, amended by the Agreement Modifying and Supplementing the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the French Republic, concluded by exchange of notes dated in Paris and Mexico City on 13 January and 4 February 2004, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-France Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the United Mexican States and the Federal Republic of Germany, signed at Mexico City, on 8 March 1967, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Germany Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the United Mexican States and the Italian Republic, signed at Mexico City on 23 December 1965, amended by the Agreement Modifying and Supplementing the Air Transport Agreement between the United Mexican States and the Italian Republic of 23 December 1965, concluded by exchange of notes dated Rome, Italy, 2 August and 7 December 2004, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Italy Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg on air transport, signed at Mexico City, on 19 March 1996, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Luxembourg Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, signed at Mexico City, 6 December 1971, amended by the Agreement Modifying the Air Transport Agreement of 6 December 1971 between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, concluded by exchange of notes dated 24 August 1992 in Mexico City, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Netherlands Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Republic of Poland, signed at Mexico City, on 11 October 1990, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Poland Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Agreement on Civil Air Transport between the Governments of Mexico and Portugal, signed at Lisbon, Portugal on 22 October 1948, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Portugal Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, signed at Mexico City, on 21 November 1978, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-Spain Agreement’,

                                 —

                                 Agreement between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning air services, signed at Mexico City, on 18 November 1988, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mexico-United Kingdom Agreement’.

                     (b)

                     Air service agreements between the United Mexican States and Member States of the European Union which, at the date of signature of this Agreement, have not yet entered into force:

                                 —

                                 Air Transport Agreement between the United Mexican States and the Kingdom of Spain, signed at Madrid, Spain, on 8 April 2003.

         ANNEX II

            LIST OF ARTICLES IN THE AGREEMENTS LISTED IN ANNEX I AND REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THIS AGREEMENT

                     (a)

                     Designation by a Member State:

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Austria Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Belgium Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Czech Republic Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-France Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Germany Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Italy Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Luxembourg Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Netherlands Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Poland Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article II of the Mexico-Portugal Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 3 of the Mexico-Spain Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-United Kingdom Agreement.

                     (b)

                     Refusal, revocation, suspension or limitation of authorisations or permissions:

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Austria Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 5 of the Mexico-Belgium Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Czech Republic Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-France Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4, first sentence, of the Mexico-Germany Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Italy Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Luxembourg Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Netherlands Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Poland Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article VII of the Mexico-Portugal Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 4 of the Mexico-Spain Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 5 of the Mexico-United Kingdom Agreement.

                     (c)

                     Safety:

                                 —

                                 Article 6 of the Mexico-Austria Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 7 of the Mexico-Belgium Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 6 of the Mexico-Czech Republic Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 6a of the Mexico-France Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 6a of the Mexico-Italy Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 6 of the Mexico-Luxembourg Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 6 of the Mexico-Netherlands Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article V of the Mexico-Portugal Agreement,

                                 —

                                 Article 8 of the Mexico-United Kingdom Agreement.

         ANNEX III

            LIST OF OTHER COUNTRIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2 OF THIS AGREEMENT

                     (a)

                     The Republic of Iceland (under the Agreement on the European Economic Area).

                     (b)

                     The Principality of Liechtenstein (under the Agreement on the European Economic Area).

                     (c)

                     The Kingdom of Norway (under the Agreement on the European Economic Area).

                     (d)

                     The Swiss Confederation (under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport).


title: 2011/618/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2009#Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 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 2009

text:
               27.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 250/260

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2011
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2009
   (2011/618/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, together with the College’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 — C7-0052/2011),

               —

               having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and 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 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 (A7-0150/2011),

               1.

               Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2009;

               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

         Jerzy BUZEK

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 137.

      (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.

      RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 10 May 2011
      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 2009
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, together with the College’s replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 — C7-0052/2011),

                  —

                  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and 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 the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

                  —

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

                  —

                  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 (A7-0150/2011),

                  A.

                  whereas 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 and 2007, 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 (5) Parliament refused to grant the Director of the College discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2008,

                  E.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2009, again qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

                  F.

                  whereas the College’s budget for the year 2009 was EUR 8 800 000, compared to EUR 8 700 000 for the year 2008,

         Weaknesses in procurement procedures

                  1.

                  Voices concern at the College’s persistent lack of compliance with the Financial Regulation with regard to public procurement rules; notes, in particular, that a significant amount of the total College’s budget contains irregularities which concern:

                              —

                              the absence of a contract or a tendering procedure,

                              —

                              the absence of specified terms of reference,

                              —

                              the absence of request or receipt of financial offer,

                              —

                              the lack of financial evaluation;

                  2.

                  Deplores the fact that in certain instances no investigations were ever carried out, such as in those cases where the procurement procedures were not properly followed and where the engagement contracts signed were illegal;

                  3.

                  Acknowledges from the College that a Procurement Officer has finally been appointed and a Procurement Manual, including templates and checklists, was adopted on 8 June 2010 by Decision No 002/2010 of the Director;

                  4.

                  Requests that the College provide the Parliament with a report on the application of the Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010-1 July 2011, before 31 October 2011;

         Failure to comply with the rules governing expenditure on courses

                  5.

                  Voices concern at the fact that the Court of Auditors identified severe shortcomings in the administrative and financial rules governing expenditure on the organisation of courses and seminars, which accounts for a major proportion of the College’s operational expenditure; considers it unacceptable that the main irregularities are due to the fact that the revised College’s Financial Regulation has never entered into force and, as result, all engagement contracts signed were illegal; notes from the College that these contracts expired in 2010 and were not renewed;

                  6.

                  Deplores the fact that because the College’s revised Financial Regulation never entered into force, engagement contracts signed with some advisers and experts were illegal (the total amount involved being estimated at EUR 200 000, including EUR 34 800 for the financial year 2009);

                  7.

                  Notes that the College’s Financial Regulation which was submitted to the Commission for an opinion in 2009 contained two provisions which did not receive a favourable opinion of the Commission because they were not considered to comply with the revised framework Financial Regulation;

                  8.

                  Recommends that the College, in the interest of fostering transparency, provide direct access to its detailed budget, which should include a list of its contracts and of its procurement decisions, and be published on the College’s website, with the exception of those contracts for which publication might entail a security risk; believes that this recommendation does not contravene the principle of personal data protection;

         Carry-over of appropriations

                  9.

                  Voices concern at the fact that more than EUR 3 800 000 of the 2009 payment appropriations, equivalent to 43 % of the total budget, was carried forward to 2010; is also concerned that 46 % of the appropriations carried over from 2008 had to be cancelled; stresses that this situation indicates severe and recurrent weaknesses in the programming and the monitoring of the implementation of the budget and is at odds with the principle of annuality;

                  10.

                  Notes that even though there is new management at the College, mistakes were made in the past which are still unaccounted for; voices concern at the College’s shortcomings in the areas of programming and monitoring of the implementation of its 2009 budget;

                  11.

                  Notes that yet again for the budget year 2008 31 % of the College’s total budget had to be carried over and, in 2007, 41,5 % of the College’s total budget had to be carried over while more than 20 % (EUR 500 000) of the College’s appropriations carried over from 2006 were cancelled;

                  12.

                  Welcomes, nevertheless, the fact that since March 2010, weekly financial management meetings have been introduced at the College to improve budgetary implementation and control; notes that improvements are scheduled to be introduced in association with the College’s Multi-Annual Activity Plan; acknowledges the actions taken to address the problem in 2010; calls the College to constantly inform the discharge authority of the improvements and action taken;

         Accounting system

                  13.

                  Regrets that the Court of Auditors reported again this year significant delays and errors in the preparation of the 2009 provisional accounts; acknowledges in particular that there was a backlog of unprocessed invoices totalling EUR 900 000 at the end of 2009; notes that this situation is due to an unsatisfactory distribution of financial responsibilities, weak internal control procedures and difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff qualified and experienced in financial and accounting matters; urges, therefore, the College to rapidly redress this situation and inform the discharge authority of the actions taken;

                  14.

                  Is concerned that the College, in its Financial Statements for 2009, quantified the total impact on accumulated reserves of its errors prior to 1 January 2008 as EUR 929 670,27 (10,56 % of its total budget for 2009) and the total impact on accumulated reserves of its errors from 2008 as EUR 284 718,77 (3,2 % of its total budget for 2009);

         Human resource management

                  15.

                  Voices concern that the Court of Auditors reported several weaknesses with regard to staff selection procedures that put at risk the transparency of these procedures; stresses in particular that the documentation of the procedures was inadequate; finds unacceptable that:

                              —

                              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 the procedures was inadequate;

                  16.

                  Is also concerned about practices which are not allowed under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (6) or are illegal; notes, in particular, cases where:

                              —

                              it was impossible to establish whether the successful candidates met the requirements in terms of the length of professional experience required,

                              —

                              the selection board took its decisions solely on the basis of the curricula vitae,

                              —

                              the successful candidate did not meet the minimum requirements in terms of professional experience,

                              —

                              a staff member with management responsibilities was authorised to be based outside the United Kingdom, but to work on the College’s premises in Bramshill for a limited number of days per year while the College was reimbursing the travel expenses;

                  17.

                  Deplores the fact that a recruitment contract which was executed in the wrong manner is still operative; calls on the College to remedy this irregularity as a matter of priority;

                  18.

                  Wonders, nevertheless, how the College intends to address these recurrent human resource management issues, especially considering the fact that the location of the College’s Secretariat in Bramshill significantly impedes its capacity to attract and retain duly qualified people;

                  19.

                  Acknowledges, nevertheless, that in 2010 the College adopted by decision of Director No 004/2010 a Recruitment Guide bringing the procedures in line with the Staff Regulations; calls therefore on the College to inform the discharge authority on the level of implementation of this decision;

         Appropriations used to finance private expenditure

                  20.

                  Notes the fact that, following the repeated request from the Internal Audit Service (IAS), the Court of Auditors and the discharge authority, an ex-post check on appropriations used to finance private expenditure was finally carried out by an external company;

                  21.

                  Acknowledges, in particular, that the objective of the external evaluation was to review the actions taken by the College to address issues raised by the Court of Auditors during their audit of the College in 2007 and to produce a report setting out the total appropriations used to finance private expenditure and the amounts recovered to date; notes, in particular, that the external audit reported:

                              (in GBP)

                              Budget heading

                              Appropriations as presented to the auditors by the College

                              Amounts recovered by the College

                              Transport costs

                              9 508

                              7 421

                              The College pool car running costs

                              14 783

                              13 916

                              Furniture purchased

                              14 788

                              500

                              Mobile phone costs

                              3 721

                              3 721

                                 TOTAL AMOUNT

                                 42 800

                                 25 558

                  22.

                  Notes that the figures provided, where available, in report 10/0257/KA on the reimbursement of private expenditure are far below the aforementioned figures disclosed by the external audit report;

                  23.

                  Deplores the fact that due to the passage of time and weaknesses in the financial management, monitoring and reporting at the College at the time leading up to the 2007 audit, the external auditor was not able to confirm this quantification of the appropriations irregularly used; notes, therefore, that the external auditor considered it more important to place the focus of the audit on the recoveries made and the potential for further recoveries;

                  24.

                  Acknowledges that the external audit report concluded that there is no real possibility for further recovery; notes, in fact, that:

                              —

                              the sale of the furniture only generated GBP 500,

                              —

                              the College is not entitled to require staff who have benefited from voluntary transport services to contribute ex-post to the transport costs incurred by the College; notes also that according to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, the amounts can only be recovered from staff if the official was aware of the irregularity of the payment or if the irregularity was so obvious that he/she could not have been unaware of it;

                  25.

                  Stresses the fact that, in its specific annual report for the year 2007, the Court of Auditors had already signalled that it was not feasible for the auditors to review all payments made during the year 2007 as it was not possible to quantify either the amount that was irregularly spent on private use or all the different types of private expenditure incurred;

                  26.

                  Underlines once again the responsibilities of the former Director for the above mentioned deficiencies and irregularities; refers, in this respect, to its resolution of 7 October 2010 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 2008 (7);

                  27.

                  Stresses in particular the following findings reported by the Czech Presidency on 18 May 2009:

                              —

                              the College’s mismanagement: in connection with the IAS findings, the Commission offered help to the College, but the Director never approached either DG Justice, Freedom and Security or DG Budget,

                              —

                              communication within the secretariat: the lack of communication and trust between the Director and the staff led to prolonged disputes,

                              —

                              lack of transparency: instead of identifying the problems and asking for advice from the Governing Board or from the Commission, the Director did not share the information which was then discovered on a random basis,

                              —

                              accountability of the Director to the College’s Governing Board: the Director did not respect the decisions of the Governing Board;

                  28.

                  Notes that the responsibilities regarding the appropriations used to finance private expenditure have been well established; deplores consequently the fact that the College’s Governing Board did not respond properly to the former Director’s managerial failings, out of concern not to harm the College’s image; considers it unacceptable that the Governing Board decided not to take disciplinary action mainly because of the possibility of legal action by the former Director;

                  29.

                  Reiterates, therefore, its position that the Governing Board of the College must be held accountable and suggests that changes be made to prevent this situation from recurring in future; calls again for a reconsideration of the position of the Commission in the Governing Board by granting it the right to vote;

         Internal audit

                  30.

                  Welcomes the College’s initiative of providing to the discharge authority the final assessment Report of the IAS on the implementation of the Multi-Annual Plan (MAP) 2010-2014 of the College; considers this a sign of transparency and a best practice to be followed by all other agencies;

                  31.

                  Acknowledges that the College, following the recommendation of the IAS, of the Court of Auditors and of the discharge authority, in the end, adopted by Decision No 010/2010 of the Director of 21 June 2010 a new procedure for the recording of exceptions; calls, now, on the College to inform the discharge authority on the level of implementation of that Decision;

                  32.

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

         College’s MAP for 2010-2014

                  33.

                  Notes that, upon the request of the discharge authority, the College’s Governing Board finally approved the MAP in May 2010; notes also the fact that by the end of September 2010, 19 of the 44 milestones had been completed whereas 18 milestones were on course with regard to the planned timetable and 7 milestones still await the initial start of implementation;

                  34.

                  Is concerned that in its Final Assessment Report on the implementation of the College’s MAP for 2010-2014, the IAS found a lack of clarity in the description of some items in the MAP and overlap between some of its milestones; stresses, therefore, 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 and it makes it difficult to assess the ultimate overall status of the related actions;

                  35.

                  Urges, therefore, the College:

                              —

                              in relation to MAP 2/Milestone 7 ‘CEPOL Internal Control Standards’, to adopt the new set-up of 16 Internal Control Standards (ICS) which simplify the original 24 ICS,

                              —

                              in relation to MAP 3/Milestone 4 ‘evaluation of efficiency, effectiveness of the secretariat performance and its leadership and management’, to describe the status of the balanced scoreboard intended for performance measurement of the College and the annual staff appraisal exercise,

                              —

                              in relation to MAP 4/Milestone 1 ‘review of the financial and accounting circuits’, to be more specific on planned future development of the financial procedures by describing the results of the review, especially the most important recommendations that the College plans to implement in order to promote effective financial procedures, including controls,

                              —

                              in relation to MAP 5/Milestone 2 ‘enhanced ex-ante and ex-post verification capacity’, to explain the major changes in ex-ante verifications, either already implemented or still in planning, as well as the plans for ex-post controls on grants,

                              —

                              in relation to MAP 10/Milestone 1 ‘reduce reliance on interim staff’, to develop a policy for the use of interim staff,

                              —

                              in relation to MAP 11 ‘improve and mature Human Resource (HR) management’, to describe the utility and the expected benefits of the College’s new HR planned method, including what impact it could have on further needs of staff resources in the College,

                        and calls therefore on the College and its Governing Board to inform the discharge authority by 30 June 2011 about the actions and improvements taken with regard to all these concerns;

                  36.

                  Notes the reply of the College that, if after an internal investigation it could be concluded that personal accountability can be established, it would definitely take the necessary measures in accordance with the applicable regulations; asks the College to inform the discharge authority on the implementation of the internal investigation;

                  37.

                  Calls on the Court of Auditors to conduct a specific audit to examine the implementation of the Action Plan of the College;

                  38.

                  Recalls that the progress of the College in implementing the MAP is primarily linked to its capacity in recruiting and retaining qualified staff experienced in financial and accounting matters;

         Structural deficits

                  39.

                  Notes the opinion developed by DG Justice, Freedom and Security in its 2009 Annual Activity Report on the College’s structural problems; calls again into question the capability of the College to overcome the following problems:

                              —

                              the impossibility to apply the complex EU financial regulations and Staff Regulations, given the limited mission and corresponding small size of the College,

                              —

                              the location of the College’s secretariat, in Bramshill, some 70 Kilometres from London, which is a disadvantage, inter alia, as regards recruitment and public transport links,

                              —

                              the College’s governance costs which are very high as compared to its activities, given that while employing only 28 staff, the College had a 27-voting member Governing Board during 2009;

                  40.

                  Notes that the College and Europol are two Union bodies evolving in similar fields and are performing complementary activities; believes that if these activities were brought together under a common agency, unnecessary additional costs would be avoided; recalls that the Union budget is based on a sound financial management requiring the spending to be relevant, effective, and efficient and unnecessary expenditures to be properly addressed;

                              (a)

                              recommends, therefore, merging the College with Europol in the near future; is convinced that the merger will engender greater rationality and efficiency in expenditure; is convinced that the cost of keeping the College and Europol separate would be higher than the cost of a merger; welcomes, therefore, the Commission’s proposal that Europol could take over the training role of the College; regrets that the Member States rejected this proposal and calls for a re-evaluation;

                              (b)

                              is confident that merging the College with Europol will be beneficial in terms of the activities performed currently by the two agencies; believes that a merger will not only provide concrete solutions to the aforementioned College’s structural and chronic problems but will also enable the College to benefit directly from Europol’s expertise regarding international organised crime and terrorism in order to fulfil its mission of providing training for senior police officers; believes that through the merger Europol will benefit from the network as well as the training expertise of the College, and will take advantage of having a unit focusing solely on training-related issues on its premises;

                              (c)

                              reiterates its request to the Commission to examine before 1 September 2011 the possibility of attaching the College to Europol as a concrete solution to the College’s structural and chronic problems; calls on the Council and the Commission to provide the Parliament with a report on the merging of the College with Europol by the end of 2011;

                  41.

                  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2011 (8) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 137.

         (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 320, 7.12.2010, p. 11.

         (6)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

         (7)  OJ L 320, 7.12.2010, p. 12.

         (8)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0163 (See page 269 of this Official Journal).