Sittings · Document

Draft report (2024/2019(DEC)) 2025-02-27

2023 discharge: General budget of the EU - Commission

Committee on Budgetary Control

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

AM_Com_NonLegReport

Amendment 1

Tamás Deutsch

Proposal for a decision 1

Paragraph 1

Proposal for a decision

Amendment

1. Grants the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023 / Postpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023;

1. Postpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023;

Or. en

Amendment 2

Tamás Deutsch

Proposal for a decision 9

Paragraph 1

Proposal for a decision

Amendment

1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023;

1. Postpones the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023;

Or. en

Amendment 3

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph -1 (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

-1. Deplores the fact that, contrary to the stated values and the very purpose of the founding of the Union, the Commission, through its Commissioners and its functioning, is regularly the subject of scandals;

Or. fr

Amendment 4

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Deplores the scandal of the Commissioner for Justice laundering money through lottery tickets (potentially involving EUR 1 million);

Or. fr

Amendment 5

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1 a. Expresses deep concern that, in 2021, following a request for public access to text messages between the Commission's President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company regarding the Commission’s purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, the Commission refused to acknowledge that such text messages fall under the definition of a ‘document’ as outlined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; reminds that the registration of a document is a consequence of its existence, not a prerequisite for it; acknowledges the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case and expresses concern that, to date, the Commission has not acted on the Ombudsman’s recommendation to conduct an additional search for relevant text messages; urges the Commission to publish the text messages without delay; expresses serious concern about the growing disconnect between citizens and EU institutions, which is being exacerbated by this and other instances of maladministration by the Commission; stresses that the call for the Commission be transparent and to publish the text messages, which has been blatantly ignored to date, was also made in the European Parliament’s annual report on public access to documents for the years 2019-20213a, European Parliament's resolution of 21 October 2021 on EU transparency in the development, purchase and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines 4a, European Parliament's annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 20225a, as well as in the Discharge reports for the Ombudsman and the Commission from previous years;

_________________

3a 3a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0295_EN.html

4a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0435_EN.html

5a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0035_EN.html

Or. en

Amendment 6

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1 a. Highlights the importance of the EU budget for achieving the Union’s political priorities, as well as its role in assisting Member States in unforeseen situations such as international conflicts or crisis and their consequences; points out in this regard the continuing relevance of investments and support from the Union budget for reducing disparities between Member States and regions, for promoting economic growth and employment, for combating poverty and social exclusion, and thus for improving the daily life of European citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 7

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1b. Deplores the scandal of the Commission President purchasing 4.6 billion Covid vaccine doses for EUR 71 billion and the recent purchase of an additional 146 million doses for an unknown amount;

Or. fr

Amendment 8

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1c. Whereas the Commission required certain MEPs in the COVI Committee to sign a confidentiality undertaking on 30 May 2023, without specifying the end date of that confidentiality obligation, concerning a payment made per dose by the Europeans to Pfizer in exchange for the non-delivery of certain doses still to be delivered;

Or. fr

Amendment 9

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 d (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1d. Whereas the Commissioner for Health testified on Monday 27.3.2023 before the COVI Special Committee that President Von der Leyen was not involved in any negotiation of COVID vaccine contracts, contrary to information published by the New York Times (28.4.2021) and the findings of the European Court of Auditors in its special report on the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines;

Or. fr

Amendment 10

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 i (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1i. Deplores the scandal of the administration of the Trust Fund for Africa, which was denounced by the Court of Auditors;

Or. fr

Amendment 11

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 j (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1j. Deplores the inexplicable leniency of the Commission towards its Director-General for Transport, who accepted free flights from Qatar Airways;

Or. fr

Amendment 12

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2. Notes that the Court of Auditors (the Court) for the financial year 2023 has issued a clean opinion concerning the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of revenue; at the same time, regrets that again the Court has had to issue an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of Union budget expenditure and a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of expenditure under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); deplores, in this regard, the use of this new, extremely costly type of so-called temporary and flexible instrument, which the European Court of Auditors has regularly criticised for lacking transparency in achieving milestones and targets, as well as the lack of objectivity in the funding agreement, which is entirely in the hands of the Commission; regrets the planned development of such instruments, which provide few guarantees of oversight and thus of protecting the Union’s financial interests;

Or. fr

Amendment 13

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 14

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2 a. Calls on the Commission to respect the equality of all Member States before the Treaties and stresses the need to ensure each and every Member State has even access to the European Funds, as currently not all Member States are treated and supported evenly from the Union funds, which significantly undermines the functioning of the Single Market;

Or. en

Amendment 15

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Filip Turek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2a. Whereas the European Court of Auditors should have access to all documents or information necessary for the other Union institutions in accordance with Article 287(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);

Or. fr

Amendment 16

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2b. Deplores the fact that among all the projects it finances, the Commission grants Members of the Committee on Budgetary Control access to a single contract; whereas the details of grant contracts and the results of actions should be public, with exceptions related to national security;

Or. fr

Amendment 17

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2c. Urges the Commission to make its actions and funding transparent in an easily accessible way: the financial transparency system is currently incomplete, delayed and unreliable;

Or. fr

Amendment 18

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 g (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2g. Expresses its disappointment at the persistent lack of transparency on the part of the Commission regarding its agreements with pharmaceutical companies responsible for the production of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the SMS communications between the President of the Commission and the Director-General of a pharmaceutical company to the extent that legal proceedings have damaged the Commission’s reputation while the President could easily have explained herself before Parliament;

Or. fr

Amendment 19

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 i (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2i. Deplores the Commission’s inaction in relation to the serious victims of the side effects of COVID vaccines in terms of medical research and compensation;

Or. fr

Amendment 20

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3. Deeply regrets that the overall error rate estimated by the Court has been on a rising trend since the financial year 2020 and has reached 5,6 % for the financial year 2023; notes that there are significant differences in the error rates between headings which range from spending areas with error rates below the materiality threshold of 2 % up to an error rate of 9,3 % in the case of cohesion policy; further notes that discharge is a political process where all issues related to a specific financial year may be taken into consideration and that the decision on whether to grant or refuse discharge is taken for the budget as a whole; at the same time, notes that if discharge was granted or refused heading by heading, it is unclear whether discharge could be granted for the implementation of the budget in heading 2 ‘Cohesion, Resilience and Values’, in light of the very high error rate; strongly encourages the Commission to take into account the Court’s recommendations and to reduce the overall error rate over the coming years;

3. Expresses its deep concerns that the overall error rate estimated by the Court has been on a rising trend since the financial year 2020 and has reached 5,6 % for the financial year 2023; notes that there are significant differences in the error rates between headings which range from spending areas with error rates below the materiality threshold of 2 % up to an error rate of 9,3 % in the case of cohesion policy; strongly urges the Commission to finally take into account the Court’s recommendations and to reduce the overall error rate over the coming years and especially in the cohesion policy;

Or. en

Amendment 21

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3. Deeply regrets that the overall error rate estimated by the Court has been on a rising trend since the financial year 2020 and has reached 5,6 % for the financial year 2023; notes that there are significant differences in the error rates between headings which range from spending areas with error rates below the materiality threshold of 2 % up to an error rate of 9,3 % in the case of cohesion policy; further notes that discharge is a political process where all issues related to a specific financial year may be taken into consideration and that the decision on whether to grant or refuse discharge should remain factual and anchored in EU acquis, and it is taken for the budget as a whole; strongly encourages the Commission to take into account the Court’s recommendations and to reduce the overall error rate over the coming years;

Or. en

Amendment 22

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3 a. Believes that a maximum error rate for low risk payments should not exceed 4% while for a high risk payments the error rate should not be above 6% for the Parliament to be able to grant discharge to the Commission; suggests that in such cases, Parliament should postpone the discharge demanding the Commission to present a clear Action Plan on reducing the error rate within the following four months; stresses that Parliament shall duly scrutinize such an Action Plan in the final phase of the discharge procedure and assess the achieved error rate before deciding on whether to eventually grant discharge or not;

Or. en

Amendment 23

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Filip Turek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3b. Deplores the scandal of the Commission financing NGOs with public funds to help it adopt a pseudo-climate legislative package (Green Deal) through lobbying;

Or. fr

Amendment 24

Virginie Joron, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3c. Deplores the fact that the Commission has chosen to defend Pfizer rather than the Member States in the legal dispute between them concerning the refusal to order vaccine doses that have become unnecessary since the end of the pandemic;

Or. fr

Amendment 25

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4. Is concerned that the Commission and the Court have different interpretations of what the “error rate” represents, thus generating confusion; expresses its support for the audit approach and methodology of the Court and strongly calls on both institutions to find a solution to the divergent approaches; is concerned that the Commission may be systematically underestimating the existing error level and that this could lead to an ineffective protection of the financial interests of the Union;

4. Is concerned that the Commission and the Court have different interpretations of what the “error rate” represents, thus generating confusion; expresses its support for a common audit approach and methodology and strongly calls on both institutions to find a solution to the divergent approaches before the discharge 2024 ; is concerned that the Commission is systematically underestimating the existing error level and that this could lead to an ineffective protection of the financial interests of the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 26

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4. Is concerned that the Commission and the Court have different interpretations of what the “error rate” represents, thus generating confusion; expresses its support for the audit approach and methodology of the Court and strongly calls on both institutions to find a solution to the divergent approaches; is concerned that the Commission may be systematically underestimating the existing error level – possibly deliberately – and that this could lead to an ineffective protection of the financial interests of the Union;

Or. fr

Amendment 27

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4 a. Stresses that all EU spending must fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, ensuring that national governments maintain the right to determine their own financial priorities without unnecessary interference from Brussels; demands the European Commission to avoid using its budgetary powers to pressure Member States into compliance with centrally dictated policies that undermine their sovereignty;

Or. en

Amendment 28

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Expresses its concern that the accumulated outstanding commitments (RAL - reste à liquider) have reached a record level of EUR 543 billion, equivalent to 3,2 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; underlines that such a record high level of outstanding commitments risks creating challenges for the future smooth implementation of extraordinary high levels of payments and/or leading to significant decommitments to the detriment of the implementation of EU policy objectives;

5. Expresses its concern that the accumulated outstanding commitments (RAL - reste à liquider) have reached a record level of EUR 543 billion, equivalent to 3,2 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023, which certainly proves that the EU budget is too big to spend; calls for an imminent reform of the EU budget under the new MFF procedure; underlines that such a record high level of outstanding commitments risks creating challenges for the future smooth implementation of extraordinary high levels of payments and/or leading to significant decommitments to the detriment of the implementation of EU policy objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 29

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Expresses its concern that the accumulated outstanding commitments (RAL - reste à liquider) have reached a record level of EUR 543 billion, equivalent to 3,2 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023 and representing more than double the EU annual budget for 2023; underlines that such a record high level of outstanding commitments risks creating challenges for the future smooth implementation of extraordinary high levels of payments and/or leading to significant decommitments to the detriment of the implementation of EU policy objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 30

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Expresses again its deep concern that the accumulated outstanding commitments (RAL - reste à liquider) have reached a record level of EUR 543 billion, equivalent to 3,2 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; underlines that such a record high level of outstanding commitments risks creating challenges for the future smooth implementation of extraordinary high levels of payments and/or leading to significant decommitments to the detriment of the implementation of EU policy objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 31

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Expresses its deep concern that the accumulated outstanding commitments (RAL - reste à liquider) have reached a record level of EUR 543 billion, equivalent to 3,2 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; underlines that such a record high level of outstanding commitments risks creating challenges for the future smooth implementation of extraordinary high levels of payments and/or leading to significant decommitments to the detriment of the implementation of EU policy objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 32

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5 a. Expresses concerns about the further reduced absorption of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) - excluding NGEU resources -, which may pose a risk for some Member State of a loss of budget since, despite significant differences among them, several have implemented only 85% of less of their funds;

Or. en

Amendment 33

Virginie Joron, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5c. Deplores the Commission’s inexcusable decision to give seven years’ paid leave with a total salary of EUR 1.5 million to one of its directors accused of rape, without any attempt to recover the funds after the final conviction;

Or. fr

Amendment 34

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6. Further expresses its concern that the outstanding debt from borrowing has reached EUR 458,5 billion, equivalent to 2,7 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; notes that the increase in outstanding debt during 2023, equivalent to EUR 110,5 billion, has made the Union one of the largest debt issuers in Europe; further notes that the amount of outstanding debt is projected to increase further during the coming years, especially due to increased borrowing linked to the RRF and financial assistance to a number of countries including Ukraine; notes that the increase in debt makes the Union budget more vulnerable to increases in interest rates since a part of the debt will have to be serviced and repaid by the Union budget;

Or. en

Amendment 35

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6. Further expresses its concern that the outstanding debt from borrowing has reached EUR 458,5 billion, equivalent to 2,7 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; notes that the increase in outstanding debt during 2023, equivalent to EUR 110,5 billion, has made the Union one of the largest debt issuers in Europe; further notes that the amount of outstanding debt is projected to increase further during the coming years, especially due to increased borrowing linked to the RRF and financial assistance to a number of countries including Ukraine; reiterates its deep concerns that the increase in debt makes the Union budget more vulnerable to increases in interest rates since a part of the debt will have to be serviced and repaid by the Union budget;

Or. en

Amendment 36

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6. Further expresses its concern that the outstanding debt from borrowing has reached EUR 458,5 billion, equivalent to 2,7 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; notes that the increase in outstanding debt during 2023, equivalent to EUR 110,5 billion, has made the Union one of the largest debt issuers in Europe; further notes that the amount of outstanding debt is projected to increase further during the coming years, especially due to increased borrowing linked to the RRF and financial assistance to a number of countries including Ukraine (for which the ‘loan’ is unlikely ever to be repaid) and ultimately will amount to grants additional to those initially adopted, burdening European citizens already hit hard by inflation and successive crises; notes that the increase in debt makes the Union budget more vulnerable to increases in interest rates since a part of the debt will have to be serviced and repaid by the Union budget;

Or. fr

Amendment 37

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6. Further expresses its concern that the outstanding debt from borrowing has reached EUR 458,5 billion, equivalent to 2,7 % of total EU GDP at the end of 2023; notes that the increase in outstanding debt during 2023, equivalent to EUR 110,5 billion, has made the Union one of the largest debt issuers in Europe; further notes that the amount of outstanding debt is projected to increase further during the coming years, especially due to increased borrowing linked to the RRF and financial assistance to a number of countries including Ukraine, attacked by Russia; notes that the increase in debt makes the Union budget more vulnerable to increases in interest rates since a part of the debt will have to be serviced and repaid by the Union budget;

Or. en

Amendment 38

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6 a. Expresses concerns about the increased risks the Court identified for the EU budget, including the risks of decommitments in cohesion policy for the 2020-2027 MFF period, the inflation and the total budget exposure including to Ukraine in particular through the MFA+; requests the Commission to carefully evaluate these risks and to report them in a clear manner as requested by the Court and to present consistent measures to mitigate them;

Or. en

Amendment 39

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6 a. Calls on the European Commission to always respect the equality of Member States and to treat all Member States equally, respect their sovereignty and their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government; failing to do so will undermine the functioning of the Single Market;

Or. en

Amendment 40

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6a. Notes that borrowing on the assumption that capital-market interest rates would remain low has been a historical mistake; calls on the Commission to deliver a sound plan to pay off existing debt by the deadline set for that purpose; advocates a halt to taking on new debt;

Or. nl

Amendment 41

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6a. Deplores the fact that this indebtedness places the Union in a situation of dependence on its creditors, potentially exposing it to risks of interference from outside the Union;

Or. fr

Amendment 42

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6 b. Recalls the importance of a strict application of the financial rules of the Union in all programmes and on all beneficiaries, in order to avoid all forms of fraud, conflicts of interest, corruption, double funding and money laundering; reminds in this framework of the key role played by the whole Union’s anti-fraud architecture and expresses some concerns about the refusal of some Member States to cooperate with one of its elements, notably the EPPO;

Or. en

Amendment 43

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 44

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Regrets the absence of an agreed definition of the rule of law as one of the fundamental values of the Union and the biased use which the Commission arbitrarily makes of it;

Or. fr

Amendment 45

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Underlines the importance of the rule of law as one of the fundamental values of the Union, at the same time, underlines the need for complete and timely information on decisions related to the implementation of the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism;

Or. en

Amendment 46

Csaba Molnár, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Underlines the importance of the rule of law as one of the fundamental values of the Union and stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism is crucial in order to ensure that Member States continue to respect the principles of the rule of law; reiterates its deep concerns about the deteriorating rule of law situation in certain Member States, which not only poses a significant threat to democratic values but also leads to considerable financial losses for the Union budget; acknowledges the emergence of new forms of rule of law violations by national governments and therefore urges the reinforcement and expansion of the scope of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation to address these evolving challenges; calls on the Commission to ensure strict and fast implementation of all elements of the mechanism when Member States breach the principles of the rule of law where this affects, or risks affecting, financial interests of the Union; at the same time, underlines the need for complete and timely information on decisions related to the implementation of the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism; encourages the Commission to explicitly assess when shortcomings in the rule of law are of a systemic nature; calls for a stronger emphasis on the implementation of country-specific recommendations, coupled with effective follow-up mechanisms and measurable benchmarks; proposes the establishment of a comprehensive rule of law monitoring framework involving all EU institutions, Member States, and candidate countries, aimed at ensuring coherence and uniformity across the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 47

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Underlines the importance of the rule of law as one of the fundamental values of the Union and stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism is crucial in order to ensure that Member States continue to respect the principles of the rule of law; reiterates its deep concerns about the situation concerning the rule of law in certain Member States, which is deeply worrying in its own right and leads to serious losses for the Union budget; underlines that, in preparing the Rule of Law report, the Commission should maintain impartiality in its discussions with the relevant authorities providing input and ensure that it receives contributions from all relevant professional associations and stakeholders, rather than only those that align with a pre-established narrative favored by Brussels; calls on the Commission to ensure strict and fast implementation of all elements of the mechanism when Member States breach the principles of the rule of law where this affects, or risks affecting, financial interests of the Union; at the same time, underlines the need for complete and timely information on decisions related to the implementation of the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism;

Or. en

Amendment 48

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Underlines the importance of the rule of law as one of the fundamental values of the Union and stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism is crucial in order to ensure that Member States continue to respect the principles of the rule of law; reiterates its deep concerns about the situation concerning the rule of law in certain Member States, including attacks or restrictions to the activities of civil society organisations as parts of its checks and balances, which is deeply worrying in its own right and leads to serious losses for the Union budget; calls on the Commission to ensure strict and fast implementation of all elements of the mechanism when Member States breach the principles of the rule of law where this affects, or risks affecting, financial interests of the Union; calls on increased support to civil society working on the promotion and awareness raising on fundamental rights and the rule of law as well as the fight against corruption; at the same time, underlines the need for complete and timely information on decisions related to the implementation of the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism1a;

_________________

1a amendment from Civil Society Europe (CSE)

Or. en

Amendment 49

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 50

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 a. Reminds the Commission in addition to guaranteeing the procedural rights of the Member State concerned, and that any procedure will also be conducted in accordance with the principles of objectivity, non-discrimination and equal treatment of the Member State concerned, and will be conducted according to a non-partisan and evidence-based approach;

Or. en

Amendment 51

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 a. Rejects the political misuse of the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism as a tool for coercion against sovereign Member States. Calls for its application to be strictly limited to clear, apolitical financial mismanagement cases rather than being used to exert political pressure on democratically elected governments;

Or. en

Amendment 52

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 b. Demands that the so-called "Rule of Law Conditionality" mechanism must not be used as a political tool to blackmail Member States and interfere in their democratically elected governments' decisions;

Or. en

Amendment 53

Csaba Molnár

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 a. Stresses the need for a robust, smart conditionality approach to safeguard beneficiaries from being penalised due to the actions of their government, particularly in cases such as the Hungarian government’s actions, which undermine the rule of law and have resulted in the suspension of EU funds; calls on the Commission to urgently propose specific measures to ensure that local and regional authorities, civil society, and other beneficiaries can continue to access Union funding, even in cases of rule of law violations by national governments, without undermining the effectiveness and enforcement of the regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 54

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 b. Underlines that EU Institutions are also bound by the EU treaties and the EU Rule of Law; notes that in several areas of intergovernmental competence, the Commission, through institutional bricolage, has been accumulating more powers; calls for the annual Rule of Law report to also include EU institutions, ensuring a thorough evaluation of the rule of law at all levels of governance;

Or. en

Amendment 55

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 a. Notes with concern that the Ombudsman Activity Report for 2023 highlights a considerable number of maladministration decisions related to the Commission's operations, especially in terms of citizens' rights to access documents1a;

_________________

1a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/annual-report/en/183636

Or. en

Amendment 56

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7 c. Reminds that the former Commissioner responsible for negotiating anti-corruption framework and the rule of law with Member States during the past five years is now under criminal investigation for money laundering and other corruption-related crimes;

Or. en

Amendment 57

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and its contribution to support Member States in recovering from the economic and social consequences of the pandemic and creating a more resilient European economy; demands the Commission to examine the accumulated experience, as well as to assess the implementation, monitoring and impact data from the entire implementation period before deciding whether to use the RRF as a blueprint for any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027; recalls that many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension; the insufficient flexibility; the transparency, audit and control problems of the program; the lack of sufficient clarity as to the legal base which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 58

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which represented an important and quick response tool in time of crisis, while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension which may hinder to a reduced EU added value in this aspect; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions and pushes Member States to use RRF funds to cover projects very similar to those financed by Cohesion funds but with a much more limited capacity of control; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 59

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Underlines that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions, the common debt with long-term debt payment as a consequence; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 60

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; the huge debt generated; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. fr

Amendment 61

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 should not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the lack of a clear definition of the milestones and the objectives, the lack of political ambitious reforms the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 62

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; high concentration of the disbursed amounts, majority of the funds were received by a few Member States, the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 63

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities, social partners and civil society organisations, and the lack of their involvement in the implementation as required by the regulation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which1a make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

_________________

1a amendment from Civil Society Europe (CSE)

Or. en

Amendment 64

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: scattered absorption rates and disparities among Member States accessing the RRF funds, the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 65

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a "satisfactory fulfilment of the milestone or target“ or "final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 66

Csaba Molnár, Eero Heinäluoma, José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Takes note of the innovative nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) while underlining that any new proposals for financing mechanisms in the Union, including in the Commission’s upcoming MFF proposal for the period after 2027 must not use the RRF as a blueprint, as many problems were identified in the implementation of the RRF, including, but not limited to: the lack of adequate consultation of the regional and local authorities, civil society organisations and social partners and the lack of their involvement in the implementation; the weak cross border dimension and the questionable EU added value; the insufficient flexibility; the serious transparency, audit and control problems of the program which make it impossible for the citizens to be informed about the final beneficiaries of EU-funded actions; re-iterates the concern about the interpretation of the Commission and Member States on what a “final recipient” of RRF funding represents, which is not in line with the agreement of the REPowerEU negotiations and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; further expresses concern about the findings of the Court concerning the risk of double funding and financing of recurring budgetary expenditure which are not in line with the RRF legal basis;

Or. en

Amendment 67

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8 a. Questions whether the RRF can fulfill its mandate with the existing significant differences in absorption rates and present difficulties to access the funds, or rather will strengthen and widen the already existing imbalances and differences among Member States within the EU instead of making them more sustainable, resilient and better prepared for new challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 68

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

9. Notes that the set-up of the NGEU mechanism implies that the repayment of NGEU loans must start before the end of 2027 and be completed by 2058 at the latest; is concerned that the increase in interest rates over the last years has increased the borrowing costs under the NGEU significantly compared with original estimates; reiterates the need to fully respect the timeline of the legally binding roadmap for the introduction of new own resources and underlines that swift progress on new own resources is essential, both for the repayment of NGEU borrowing costs and for the financial robustness and implementation of the current and future MFFs;

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 69

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. nl

Amendment 70

Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 71

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 72

Ondřej Knotek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 73

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

9. Notes that the set-up of the NGEU mechanism implies that the repayment of NGEU loans must start before the end of 2027 and be completed by 2058 at the latest; is concerned that the increase in interest rates over the last years has increased the borrowing costs under the NGEU significantly compared with original estimates; reminds in this regard to the risks and inefficiencies of joint borrowing; reiterates the need to fully respect the timeline of the legally binding roadmap for the introduction of new own resources and underlines that swift progress on new own resources is essential, both for the repayment of NGEU borrowing costs and for the financial robustness and implementation of the current and future MFFs;

Or. en

Amendment 74

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

9 a. Reminds that under the Better regulation agenda, the Commission is due to present solid and impartial impact assessments to accompany all legislative proposals that have a significant economic, social and environmental impact, in order to guarantee among other a fair distribution of funds;

Or. en

Amendment 75

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10. Stresses the need for significant de-bureaucratisation and simplification of Union policies and their funding in line with the recommendations in the Draghi report2 in order to ease the burdens for European business and increase European competitiveness; underlines that simplification will also have a positive effect on error rates in the implementation of policies because many errors happen because of overcomplicated rules which are difficult to navigate especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs);

10. Stresses the urgent need for significant de-bureaucratisation and simplification of all Union policies and their funding in line with the recommendations in the Draghi report2 in order to ease the burdens for European business and increase European competitiveness; underlines that simplification will also have a positive effect on error rates in the implementation of policies because many errors happen because of overcomplicated rules which are difficult to navigate especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs); new applicants, spin-offs and start-up;

_________________

2 The future of European competitiveness’, 9 September 2024.

Or. en

Amendment 76

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10. Stresses the need for significant de-bureaucratisation, streamlining and simplification of Union policies and their funding in line with the recommendations in the Draghi report2 in order to ease the burdens for European business and increase European competitiveness; underlines that simplification will also have a positive effect on error rates in the implementation of policies because many errors happen because of overcomplicated rules which are difficult to navigate especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs);

_________________

2 The future of European competitiveness’, 9 September 2024.

Or. en

Amendment 77

Tamás Deutsch, Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10 b. Reminds, that the Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal has set out a way for a simplification revolution, ensuring a clear, simple and smart regulatory framework for businesses and drastically reducing administrative, regulatory and reporting burdens, in particular for SMEs, simplification and making existing rules more effective could contribute and strengthen the protection of the EU’s financial interests;

Or. en

Amendment 78

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10 a. Stresses the need and highlights the importance of the NDICI programme for the support to global challenges, the promotion of human rights, freedoms and democracy; underlines the importance of reinforcing the Eastern Neighbourhood line in order to support political, economic and social reforms in this challenged region;

Or. en

Amendment 79

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10a. Points out that the high error rate for the financial year 2023 shows that improvements also need to be made to financial management by the Commission and the Member States; calls in this connection for the Commission to make more frequent use of the net financial corrections instrument;

Or. nl

Amendment 80

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10 b. Notes with great concern that the Ombudsman receives many citizens' complaints about extreme delays in gaining access to requested documents from the Commission; supports the Ombudsman’s views that access delayed is effectively access denied and that administrative processes should be streamlined to ensure that citizens receive access to documents in a timely manner6a;

_________________

6a ttps://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/multimedia/infographics/en/142

Or. en

Amendment 81

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

11. Reiterates the need to balance the further simplification of rules and procedures with better controls over the most repeated areas of irregular spending, develop training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies and all other relevant stakeholders;

11. Reiterates the need to balance the further simplification of rules and procedures with better controls and adequate ex post checks on the most repeated areas of irregular spending that do not add excessive bureaucratic complexity for beneficiaries; develop training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies and all other relevant stakeholders;

Or. en

Amendment 82

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

11. Reiterates the need to balance the further simplification of rules and procedures with better and more robust controls over the most repeated areas of irregular spending, develop training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies and all other relevant stakeholders; reminds that a robust control system under the responsibility of the Commission is particularly needed for the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 83

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

11. Reiterates the need to balance the further simplification of rules and procedures with a larger digitalisation, better controls over the most repeated areas of irregular spending, develop training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies and all other relevant stakeholders;

Or. en

Amendment 84

José Cepeda, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

11 a. Highlights that equality is one of the founding values of the Union and is enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; recalls the long-standing commitment of the Union to gender mainstreaming in its policy-making in order to identify and redress inequalities, as well as it being a necessary condition for the achievement of the Union's objectives of growth, employment and social cohesion; stresses the importance of continuing the efforts made in gender budgeting and in tracking the impact of the EU budget to foster gender equality;

Or. en

Amendment 85

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

11 a. Recalls, that a bombshell report revealed the European Commission's brazen misuse of taxpayer funds, funnelling billions into a shadowy network of NGOs and think tanks to promote its own political agenda and silence dissenting voices; condemns this enormous EU-NGO propaganda complex, that undermines democracy and constitutes a massive betrayal of European citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 86

Virginie Joron, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12. Underlines that it is imperative for the credibility of the Union and the protection of financial interests that the Commission ensures that no European funds are allocated to a person convicted of fraud, bodily injury, rape, murder or terrorist activities or an organisation linked to terrorist activities, including Islamist and Anti-Israel movements; in this context, recalls that there have been credible reports that UNRWA has employed members of the terrorist organisation Hamas; underlines that the Commission should also establish controls ensuring that no such funding happens indirectly through third parties;

Or. fr

Amendment 87

Pasquale Tridico, Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12. Underlines that it is imperative for the credibility of the Union that the Commission ensures that no European funds allocated to individuals or organisations linked to any kind of terrorist movements or any other movement expressing extremist views, inciting violence and hatred, that are directly in opposition to the European Union’s fundamental values, including Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic movements; in this context, recalls that there have been allegations that 12 out of 13000 UNRWA employees have been members of the terrorist organisation Hamas; welcomes the actions taken by the UN following the allegations regarding the Agency’s staff and welcomes UNRWA's full commitment to implement the recommendations stemming from the ‘Colonna report'; echoes the European Council conclusions of 17 October 2024 which condemns any attempt to abrogate the 1967 agreement between Israel and UNRWA; underlines that the Commission should also establish controls ensuring that no such funding happens indirectly through third parties; but reminds that UNRWA plays a crucial role in providing humanitarian aid and essential services which in the present circumstances must not be interrupted and considers that all UN agencies active in the region must be supported in their efforts

Or. en

Amendment 88

José Cepeda, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12. Underlines that it is imperative for the credibility of the Union that the Commission ensures that no European funds allocated to individuals or organisations linked to any kind of terrorist movements or any other movement expressing extremist views, inciting violence and hatred, that are directly in opposition to the European Union’s fundamental values, including both Islamophobic and Antisemitic movements; in this context, recalls the allegations regarding 12 out of 30 000 staff members of UNRWA and notes the conclusion of the so-called Colonna report that evidence is yet to be provided; welcomes that, nevertheless, that the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) launched an investigation into these allegations and notes its results, i.e. (i) in 1 case, no evidence was obtained, (ii) in 9 other cases, the evidence obtained was insufficient, and (iii) in 9 cases, OIOS was not able to independently authenticate information but their employment was formally terminated in the interests of UNRWA; underlines that the Commission should also establish controls ensuring that no such funding happens indirectly through third parties;

Or. en

Amendment 89

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. nl

Amendment 90

Olivier Chastel, Gilles Boyer, Sophie Wilmès, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 91

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 92

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Emphasises that EU assistance must align with broader human rights and peace objectives in the region, with strong safeguards in place to ensure that the funds do not, either directly or indirectly, support terrorist or violent activities; calls that EU funding for the reconstruction of Gaza should only commence once all hostages taken by Hamas have been released;

Or. en

Amendment 93

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 – point 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(1) Calls for strengthened measures to ensure that beneficiaries of EU funds comply with EU rules, safeguards, and international law; notes with deep concern that schools run by the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA continue to feature portrayals that defend, justify, or even glorify violence against Israelis, including acts of terrorism, such as those committed by Dalal al-Mughrabi, which are presented as examples of self-sacrificing "resistance"1a; condemns the continued presence of such problematic and hateful content in Palestinian school textbooks and materials, which has yet to be removed; calls that all the EU funds for the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA be suspended until all the textbooks and educational materials used in their schools strictly adhere to UNESCO standards of peace, tolerance, co-existence, and non-violence;

_________________

1a https://www.gei.de/en/research/projects/report-on-palestinian-textbooks-paltex/faq-answers-to-frequently-asked-questions

Or. en

Amendment 94

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12a. Deplores, however, the reality that in 2023, mainly through the Erasmus+ programme, the Commission continued to fund NGOs in Europe (Femyso, which is close to the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Relief Worldwide, etc., or close to non-EU leaders such as the Turkish President, UID), as well as universities outside the EU with links to Islamist movements (University of Gaza, which is close to Hamas); points out that the Commission is thus knowingly helping to incite interference from outside the EU, by funding it, thereby bringing principles that run counter to European values into the Member States; is disappointed that the Commission does not verify the final beneficiaries of its funding, some of which are close to terrorist movements, thus helping to support them directly or indirectly through EU funding; condemns these practices and urges the Commission to put a stop to them and to initiate procedures to recover these misappropriated funds;

Or. fr

Amendment 95

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12 a. Reiterates deep concerns about the increase in the exploitation of EU funds against EU principles and values, especially when the use of funds and transfers to other organisations are not entirely traceable; warns of the danger of EU funds ultimately being used within corrupt circles and being subject to fraud and irregularities, foreign interference or entrism ; emphasises the importance of ‘final beneficiary transparency’ for EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 96

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12 a. Reiterates the crucial role of civil society organizations in upholding democratic values and fighting corruption; calls for adequate funding to independent civil society groups that promote transparency, human rights, and environmental protection, particularly in Member States where democratic backsliding has been observed;

Or. en

Amendment 97

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron, Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12 a. Recalls the Treaty on the European Union, that the EU’s and its institutions, aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples, to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security;

Or. en

Amendment 98

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

12 b. Calls on the institution to refrain from promoting, spreading and supporting gender and woke ideology and respect the Treaty and its provisions as well as to respect the Member States’ national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, history, religion and traditions.

Or. en

Amendment 99

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; stresses however, that these general principles are being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in order to obtain specific political objectives; is extremely concerned by the findings of the discharge authority that EU funding, notably from the LIFE programme, has supported NGOs which engaged in lobbying activities towards the Parliament, Council or Member States, thus giving the impression that the Commission is indirectly lobbying the Parliament and potentially contradicting the principles of separation of powers and sincere cooperation; is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries, including NGOs are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 100

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that civil society organizations represent an essential element in a vibrant democratic society, ensuring broad coverage of diverse views in public debates; recognizes that these organizations may receive Union funds to support their important work in contributing to democratic discourse and public engagement; emphasizes that transparency in stakeholder meetings is fundamental to democratic integrity and should apply equally to all entities engaging with EU institutions; stresses that clear documentation and disclosure of such interactions strengthens public trust and democratic accountability;

Or. en

Amendment 101

José Cepeda, Marit Maij, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that interest representatives and civil society organisations (CSOs) are an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that all entities, representing their interests, may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions as provided in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); underlines that this is a legitimate and necessary part of the decision-making process to make sure that EU policies reflect people’s real needs; notes that there have been allegations made that grant agreements, concluded by the Commission on behalf of the EU, included questionable actions that could be misunderstood as potentially upsetting balance of power by the Commission and that analysis of the grant agreements is ongoing; notes in this respect that Commission is only disbursing EU funds and cannot in any way instruct beneficiaries how these fund should be used; further notes that that the Commission uses standard model grant agreements with all possible legal safeguards to prevent any inappropriate spending of the EU funds, and always include a disclaimer stating that 'views of the beneficiary do not in any way represent views of the EU and that granting authority cannot be held responsible for them’; strongly welcomes the fact that the Commission took all necessary measures to clarify the issue by adopting Guidance on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy and the important role civil society organisations play in it, clarifying that funding is fully in line with EU acquis1a;

_________________

1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/290965/Guidance_funding%20to%20lobbying%20activities_final%20Ares(2024)3320196-%2007052024.pdf.

Or. en

Amendment 102

Pasquale Tridico, Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; reminds that according to that Art 11 TEU “the institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action” and the commitment of the Commission to step up its engagement with civil society organisations that have expertise and an important role to play in defending specific societal issues and upholding human rights also via the use of the Union contribution in the form of lump sum contributions for actions under among others the Equality, Rights and Gender Equality strand, the Citizens' engagement and participation strand; urges the Commission to revise its guideline from May 2024 in order to ensure the continuation of the funding of NGO activities, including advocacy, under the LIFE programme; considers that advocacy is the raison d’etre of NGOs and civil society organisation whose role is to be further strengthened to allow a balance with other more financially equipped organisation in articular in the private sector ; considers the fact that operation grants within LIFE programme are allowed for a maximum of 700.000 euro is in line with the need to support the functioning of non-profit making entities which are involved in the development, implementation and enforcement of Union legislation and policy, and which are primarily active in the area of the environment or climate action, including energy transition, in line with the objectives of the LIFE Programme set out in Article 3; considers that discontinuing this funding would serious undermine the work of NGOs representing the voice of civil society in the European public space and would represent a severe reputational risk for the Commission; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries and interest representatives, provide for more transparency on their activities related to EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

Or. en

Amendment 103

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Welcomes the vital role played by NGOs in representing civil society and in promoting and defending the rights and values enshrined in the Treaties and the fundamental rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter); is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

Or. en

Amendment 104

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an indispensable element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that access to structural funding from the Union and other sources is a prerequisite to these functions; stresses, that these general principles are not being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in order to obtain specific political objectives, as long as NGOs continue not to be mandated by the Commission to do so; welcomes that all Members are required to publish all meetings with interest representatives, including NGOs, and highlights that the integration of MEP profiles, the Transparency Register and the Legislative Observatory, enables decision-makers and the public to easily track which interest representatives have lobbied which Members on any ongoing or closed EU legislative file; calls on the Commission to also link its published meetings with interest representatives to the Transparency Register and Legislative Observatory to create an even more comprehensive overview of lobbying activities on specific legislative files;

Or. en

Amendment 105

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; stresses however, that these general principles are being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in the EU or the Member States in order to obtain specific political objectives; is extremely concerned by the findings of the discharge authority that EU funding, notably from the LIFE programme, has supported NGOs which engaged in lobbying activities towards the Parliament, Council or Member States, thus giving the impression that the Commission is indirectly lobbying the Parliament and therefore contradicting the principles of separation of powers and sincere cooperation; Welcomes that the Commission acknowledged that these contracts are not in line with its role as an honest broker and took therefore measures; is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries, including NGOs are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for; asks the Commission to make these contracts publicly available to increase transparency and restore trust about the integrity of the legislative process;

Or. en

Amendment 106

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; stresses however, that these general principles are being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in order to obtain specific political objectives; is extremely concerned by the findings of the discharge authority that EU funding, notably from the LIFE programme, has supported NGOs which engaged in lobbying activities towards the Parliament, Council or Member States, thus giving the impression that the Commission is indirectly lobbying the Parliament and potentially contradicting the principles of separation of powers and sincere cooperation; pointing out the insufficient transparency, objectivity and reliability of spending funds in the implementation of EU policies, in particular those relating to climate and social policy; is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries, including NGOs are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

Or. en

Amendment 107

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; stresses however, that these general principles are being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in order to obtain specific political objectives; stresses also that Union funds must not be used for lobbying activities on issues in respect of which the European Union has no powers under the TFEU; is extremely concerned by the findings of the discharge authority that EU funding, notably from the LIFE programme, has supported NGOs which engaged in lobbying activities towards the Parliament, Council or Member States, thus giving the impression that the Commission is indirectly lobbying the Parliament and potentially contradicting the principles of separation of powers and sincere cooperation; is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries, including NGOs are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

Or. nl

Amendment 108

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; stresses however, that these general principles are being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in order to obtain specific political objectives; is extremely concerned by the findings of the discharge authority that EU funding, notably from the LIFE programme, has supported NGOs which engaged in lobbying activities towards the Parliament, Council or Member States, thus giving the impression that the Commission is indirectly lobbying the Parliament and potentially contradicting the principles of separation of powers and sincere cooperation; is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; calls on the Commission to require all EU-funded beneficiaries, including NGOs are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

Or. en

Amendment 109

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Notes that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) represent an important element in a vibrant and lively democratic society, ensuring a sound basis for broad coverage of all relevant views in different debates and that NGOs may receive support from Union funds to exercise these functions; stresses however, that these general principles are being misused when Union funds are being used to generate targeted lobbying campaigns towards MEPs or other political actors in order to obtain specific political objectives; is concerned about interference in the legislative process; is extremely concerned by the findings of the discharge authority that EU funding, notably from the LIFE programme, has supported NGOs which engaged in lobbying activities towards the Parliament, Council or Member States, thus giving the impression that the Commission is indirectly lobbying the Parliament and potentially contradicting the principles of separation of powers and sincere cooperation; is of the opinion that the measures put in place by the Commission so far fail to address the root causes of the issue and requests that the Commission creates additional rules which distinguish between sound distribution of information and engagement in public debates and targeted lobbying of MEPs and other politicians and stops funding to NGOs that violate these rules; asks that the Commission requires that all EU-funded beneficiaries, including NGOs are obliged to publish all meetings with MEPs or MEP assistants or other representatives of other EU institutions, bodies or agencies whenever such meetings relate to ongoing EU legislative files or to the EU financing that such beneficiaries receive or apply for;

Or. fr

Amendment 110

Olivier Chastel, Sophie Wilmès, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13 a. Recalls the importance of civil society for the balance of power and the necessity to guarantee them a safe, supportive and enabling environment ; deplores restrictions on civil society activity : insists on the necessity for the EU institutions to maintain and promote an open, transparent and structured dialogue with civil society organisations ; recalls the commitment of the Commission in its political guidelines to step up its engagement with civil society organisations that have expertise and an important role to play in defending specific societal issues and upholding human rights

Or. en

Amendment 111

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13a. Recalls that grants to NGOs from the Union budget total several billion euros every year, making the EU one of the largest financial backers of civil society organisations; is concerned about cases of fraud and irregularities in situations where EU-funded NGOs are at risk of conflicts of interest, double funding, corruption or money laundering; is concerned about the lack of publicly available data on NGO activities and on cases of fraud involving NGOs;

Or. fr

Amendment 112

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13 a. calls, in line with previous recommendations, for the adoption of an NGO regulation to address topics such as revolving doors, transparency in financing and donations, the fight against money laundering, limiting foreign interference, independence from political and economic influence, whistleblowing and transparent governance structures; believes that such issues are of importance for all entities receiving EU funds, and should not be used to limit the space of action of the NGOs;

Or. en

Amendment 113

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron, Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13 a. Demands full transparency on all EU-funded NGOs, ensuring that no EU funds are used for lobbying activities within European institutions. Requires all NGOs receiving EU funds to publicly disclose their sources of income and political affiliations;

Or. en

Amendment 114

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Filip Turek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13b. Calls on the Commission to require NGOs to publish on the first page of their website the amount of EU and national funding received and to detail the activities carried out;

Or. fr

Amendment 115

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13c. Points out that the Qatargate scandal exposed certain civil society organisations as catalysts for corruption; regrets the fact that NGOs and civil society organisations are still exempt from most anti-money laundering transparency and reporting obligations; emphasises that European Court of Auditors Special report No 35/2018 warns that NGOs are prone to be used for money laundering purposes; calls, therefore, for a definition of NGOs to be established at EU level and for NGOs to be brought within the scope of EU action to combat money laundering;

Or. fr

Amendment 116

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13 a. Highlights that the use of rule of law conditionality for politically motivated ideological attacks on Member States is frequent; in these attacks the European Commission used and financed NGOs and leftist media outlets from EU funds; demands therefore that these attacks against national sovereignity misusing the rule of law conditionality must be stopped;

Or. en

Amendment 117

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13a. Points out that abortion legislation is a Member State competence; stresses that Member States have very differing legislation in that area; calls on the Commission not to allocate Union funds to NGOs for the promotion of abortion;

Or. nl

Amendment 118

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13 b. Demands that appropriations must be cut for EU propaganda against national sovereignty of Member States and while supports culture and creativity in general, opposes the spread of 'woke' ideology by several media companies across Europe financed by EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 119

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 120

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14. Welcomes the entry into force of the recast of the Financial Regulation; welcomes, in particular, the enhancements related to tracking Union funds through digital tools and interoperability that will bolster the protection of the Union Financial Interests, the targeted extension of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) to shared management following MFF 2027, the reference to the Rule of Law conditionality mechanism and Union values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as well as the opportunity to streamline support for small and medium-sized enterprises and individual applicants with the introduction of very low-value grants; has strong reservations about how these reinforcements in EDES will truly protect taxpayers money since the decision to blacklist the entities belongs to the so-called "authorising officers" of the Commission, which is made behind the closed doors, and could be easily manipulated by the applicants by submitting false or incomplete data;

Or. en

Amendment 121

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14. Welcomes the entry into force of the recast of the Financial Regulation; welcomes, in particular, the enhancements related to tracking Union funds through digital tools and interoperability that will bolster the protection of the Union Financial Interests, the targeted extension of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) to shared management following MFF 2027, the reference to the Rule of Law conditionality mechanism and the introduction of a conditionality based on Union values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as well as the opportunity to streamline support for small and medium-sized enterprises, small and medium civil society organisations, and individual applicants with the introduction of very low-value grants1a;

_________________

1a amendment with input from CSE

Or. en

Amendment 122

José Cepeda, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14 a. Welcomes the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2023/2841, which establishes measures for a high common level of cybersecurity in the EU institutions, agencies, and bodies, as well as the strengthening of the role of CERT-EU (Computer Emergency Response Team for the EU) in detecting and mitigating cyberattacks; takes note of cybersecurity investments, including EUR 30 million allocated to enhancing digital security in the Commission; calls on the Commission to spare no effort in further developing a cybersecurity culture, promoting training and awareness within the EU institution; stresses the importance of EU Regulation 2023/2841 recital 14 and Article 6(7) and calls for continued adequate investments in cybersecurity towards the longer term indicative target in the order of at least 10 % of total IT spending;

Or. en

Amendment 123

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14a. Regrets that this discharge report does not address the budget item for the Commission’s communication; notes that in 2023, commitments under the ‘Executive and corporate communication services’ item totalled EUR 47 916 000 and under the ‘Communication services for citizens’ item EUR 32 783 000, making a total of more than EUR 80 million; European media have revealed, however, that more than EUR 130 million was distributed by the Commission in one year ahead of the June 2024 elections, and therefore probably already in 2023, through Havas; calls for clarification of the allocation procedure, the precise amount and the specific allocation of these funds given the risk of interference in the European democratic process;

Or. fr

Amendment 124

Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14 a. The European Parliament expresses concern over the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board as an unelected, non-transparent body with disproportionate influence over the EU legislative process; Rather than ensuring better regulation, the RSB has been criticized for delaying key legislative initiatives and applying an inconsistent approach to impact assessments, often favouring corporate interests over public welfare; The Parliament questions the continued necessity of the RSB, given its potential to undermine democratic accountability by acting as a gatekeeper for EU policies; It calls for a thorough review of the Board’s structure, independence, as well as an evaluation if the RSB should be dissolved;

Or. en

Amendment 125

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14 a. Emphasizes the need to ensure that all EU-funded programs align with the objectives of the European Green Deal, the Paris Agreement, and the Fit for 55 package; calls for a thorough assessment of budget allocations to guarantee that no EU funds support fossil fuel subsidies or environmentally harmful projects; calls for a full implementation of the EIA Directive, including the mandatory climate impact audit;

Or. en

Amendment 126

José Cepeda, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14 b. Emphasises the role of the European anti-fraud office (OLAF), the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) in the fight against fraud and corruption against the EU budget; calls the Commission to reinforce their capacities, including the provision of sufficient financial and human resources, and facilitate the cooperation between them; calls for common anti-corruption rules applicable to all staff of EU institutions and bodies, including the participation in the Transparency Register when relevant;

Or. en

Amendment 127

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14b. Recalls that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) reprimanded the Commission, finding that it illegally targeted advertising at citizens via X (formerly Twitter), using ‘sensitive’ personal data on their political opinions, with a view to attempting to influence political opinions in the Netherlands;

Or. fr

Amendment 128

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14 b. Requests that the Commission mainstream social and gender equality considerations in budget implementation by introducing mandatory gender-responsive budgeting and social impact assessments for all major EU-funded programs;

Or. en

Amendment 129

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

16. Notes that on 31 December 2023, total liabilities amounted to EUR 679,9 billion, and total assets amounted to EUR 467,7 billion; notes that the difference of EUR 212,2 billion represents the negative net assets, comprising debt and the portion of expenses already incurred by the Union up to 31 December 2023 that must be funded by future budgets;

Or. en

Amendment 130

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20. Regrets the adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the Union budget expenditure issued by the Court for the fifth year in a row; considers this increasingly problematic, as the Commission seems unable, or unwilling, to identify the cause and address the underlying issues; denounces the Commission’s attitude towards the European Court of Auditors in not taking important recommendations on board and turning them into active policies in order to ensure the legality and regularity of expenditure under the Union budget; calls on the Commission to seriously address the recommendations made by the European Court of Auditors;

Or. nl

Amendment 131

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20. Regrets the adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the Union budget expenditure issued by the Court for the fifth year in a row; considers this increasingly problematic, as the Commission seems unable, or unwilling, to identify the cause and address the underlying issues; underlines the importance of reinforcing the control mechanisms of the Commission and Member States which are considered by the Court as not reliable therefore compromising the reliability of the AMPR;

Or. en

Amendment 132

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20. Strongly regrets the adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the Union budget expenditure issued by the Court for the fifth year in a row; considers this increasingly problematic, as the Commission seems unable, or unwilling, to identify the cause and address the underlying issues;

Or. en

Amendment 133

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

21. Is particularly concerned by the Court’s estimation of the error level of 5,6 % in 2023 expenditure; notes that this is an accelerated deterioration compared to the previous two years (4,2 % in 2022 and 3.0 % in 2021); notes with concern that the Court continues to detect substantial issues in reimbursement-based expenditure where the estimated level of error is 7,9 %; notes that the effect of the errors found by the Court is estimated to be both material and pervasive;

Or. nl

Amendment 134

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

21 a. Notes that the Commission in its AMPR categorises the expenditure into higher, medium and lower risk categories, in order to focus action on high-risk areas; while the Court uses only 2 risk categories in order to produce an opinion on the legality and regularity of the expenditures; is worried that the Court work revealed limitations in the Commission’s ex post work, which, taken together, affect the robustness of the Commission’s risk assessment; notes with concerns that one of the areas most impacted was ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’, where the Court assessed the majority of the spending to be high risk, while the Commission classified only a minority in this way;

Or. en

Amendment 135

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

21 b. Reiterates the concerns about the Court observation that the Commission’s risk assessment is likely to underestimate the level of risk in several areas; is also worried by recurrent weaknesses identified by the Court on Member States’ management and control systems which are still not still preventing or detecting irregularities in heading 2, thus limiting the reliance that can be placed on their work, while Commission’s error rates do still rely on these national systems, which do not work effectively;

Or. en

Amendment 136

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

23. Underlines that the estimated level of error in the Union’s expenditure, as presented in the Court’s statement of assurance, is an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it was not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations; considers that, though not an indicator of fraud or corruption, the estimated level of error represents expenditure where corrective actions are necessary, and thus shows a wasteful use of resources; regrets that this will give a negative impression to citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 137

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 138

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

24. Notes that the Commission´s own estimate of the risk at payment is 1,9 % for 2023 and has been at that level since 2020; notes that the Commission estimates its capacity to correct and recover irregular expenditure during implementation of the associated programmes at 1,0 %, resulting in a risk at closure of 0,9 %;

24. Notes with concerns that the Commission´s own estimate of the risk at payment is only 1,9 % for 2023 and has been at that level since 2020; notes that the Commission estimates its capacity to correct and recover irregular expenditure during implementation of the associated programmes at 1,0 %, resulting in a risk at closure of 0,9 %; is worried that again for this year the Commission’s risk at payment is not only below the Court estimated level of error of 5.6 % but also below the Court range, which is between 4.4 % and 6.8 %; highlights that the divergence between the Court’s overall error rate and the Commission’s risk at payment, is also evident in some of the spending areas in particular in headings 2 , even more than in the past; welcomes the Court’s estimate of the level of error as important indicator for the existing risks;

Or. en

Amendment 139

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

24 a. Highlights that the European Commission's rules to protect the financial interests of the EU and to ensure transparency and avoid misconduct have failed to function, as it has been revealed that former members of the Commission are currently being questioned and investigated for misuse of EU funds, misconduct, money laundering, which has been ongoing for several years within the institution;

Or. en

Amendment 140

José Cepeda, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 25

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

25. Notes the multi-annual perspective of the Commission’s risk at closure, as corrections and recoveries after year-end are not reflected in the Court’s estimate of the level of error; regrets, however, the confusion caused by the Commission’s presentation of the risk at payment;

25. Notes the multi-annual perspective of the Commission’s risk at closure, as corrections and recoveries after year-end are not reflected in the Court’s estimate of the level of error;

Or. en

Amendment 141

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

26. Recalls the positions expressed in the 2022 discharge resolution and the exchanges of views in the discharge hearings for the financial year 2023 on the diverging methodologies and estimates between the Court and the Commission of errors made in Union expenditure and expresses its support for the audit approach and methodology of the Court; notes an even wider gap between the Court’s and Commission’s estimates; further notes that the Commission and the Court are organising a joint workshop on this issue; notes that the Court recently aligned its methodology on procurement in the decentralised agencies with the methodology of the Commission; reiterates its support for the independent audit approach and methodology of the Court and invites the Commission to cooperate with the Court with a view to increasing harmonisation and providing for more comparable estimates of the level of error;

26. Recalls the positions expressed in the 2022 discharge resolution and the exchanges of views in the discharge hearings for the financial year 2023 on the diverging methodologies and estimates between the Court and the Commission of errors made in Union expenditure and expresses its support for the audit approach and methodology of the Court; notes with concerns an even wider gap between the Court’s and Commission’s estimates calling again into question the ability of the Commission to effectively protect the EU financial interest ; further notes that the Commission and the Court are organising a joint workshop on this issue; notes that the Court recently aligned its methodology on procurement in the decentralised agencies with the methodology of the Commission; reiterates its support for the independent audit approach and methodology of the Court and invites the Commission to cooperate with the Court with a view to increasing harmonisation and providing for more comparable estimates of the level of error;

Or. en

Amendment 142

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron, Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 27 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

27 a. Stresses that it has been proven that the European Union’s financial interests were not well protected, stipulates the need to further strengthen and revise the anti-corruption and transparency rules of the institution,

Or. en

Amendment 143

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

28. Notes that the primary responsibility for preventing and detecting fraud rests with the Commission, as the institution responsible for the management and governance of the Union budget; notes that the Court, in the exercise of its mandate, is obliged to report any cases of irregularity; notes that the Court forwards to the EPPO suspicions of criminal offences falling under its competences and to OLAF suspicions of fraud, corruption or other illegal activity affecting the Union’s financial interests identified while performing its audits; notes that, in 2023, the Court reported 20 cases of suspected fraud to OLAF, and in parallel reported 12 of these cases to the EPPO, resulting so far in four OLAF investigations and nine EPPO investigations; commends the Court for its reporting of cases of irregularity to OLAF and the EPPO, as information resulting from audit engagements usually has a high degree of reliability;

28. Recalls that the Commission is responsible for preventing and detecting fraud; notes that, in 2023, the Court reported 20 cases of suspected fraud to OLAF, and in parallel reported 12 of these cases to the EPPO, resulting so far in four OLAF investigations and nine EPPO investigations; commends the Court for its reporting of cases of irregularity to OLAF and the EPPO, as information resulting from audit engagements usually has a high degree of reliability;

Or. en

Amendment 144

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29a. Regrets that the Commission is initiating actions that will have a serious impact on the Member States’ budgets or the EU budget (EUR 100 - 1 000 billion) but involve expenditure which has not been put to a popular referendum nor was it subject to a debate at the time of the European elections; regrets that the Draghi report was published after the European election;

Or. fr

Amendment 145

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 31

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

31. Recalls that the time available for implementing shared management funds under the 2021-2027 MFF is shorter than under previous MFFs because of the n+2 for the last year, which, coupled with the high RAL, will raise the risk of decommitments; notes the Court’s observation that the Commission has increased its forecasted amount of decommitments from EUR 7.6 billion for 2023-2027, to EUR 8.1 billion for 2024-2027 to EUR 8.8 billion for 2025-2027, a 15 % increase in 2 years; notes that the Commission has underestimated the RAL in the last two years, and that the Commission therefore likely underestimates the amount of decommitments that will be made until 2027; notes the introduction of the “cascade mechanism” following the mid-term review of the MFF 2021-2027 and the incentive to use decommitted amounts to cover increased interest costs for amounts borrowed by the Commission for NGEU;

Or. fr

Amendment 146

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 31

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

31. Recalls that the time available for implementing shared management funds under the 2021-2027 MFF is shorter than under previous MFFs because of the n+2 for the last year, which, coupled with the high RAL, will raise the risk of decommitments; notes the Court’s observation that the Commission has increased its forecasted amount of decommitments from EUR 7.6 billion for 2023-2027, to EUR 8.1 billion for 2024-2027 to EUR 8.8 billion for 2025-2027, a 15 % increase in 2 years; underlines with concern that the Commission has underestimated the RAL in the last two years, and that the Commission therefore likely underestimates the amount of decommitments that will be made until 2027; notes the introduction of the “cascade mechanism” following the mid-term review of the MFF 2021-2027 and the incentive to use decommitted amounts to cover increased interest costs for amounts borrowed by the Commission for NGEU;

Or. en

Amendment 147

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

32. Notes with concern that Union debt increased from EUR 344,3 billion in 2022 to EUR 458,5 billion in 2023, 60 % of which is related to NGEU; notes that only for the debt issued for NGEU, associated interest costs need to be paid directly from the Union Budget and that, due to increased interest rates, these costs for the current MFF (until the end of 2027) are estimated to be between EUR 17 billion and EUR 27 billion higher than the initially forecasted EUR 14,9 billion; expresses some concerns on the decision to make the EU’s diversified funding strategy the standard approach to EU borrowing as from December 2022, decoupling borrowing and lending terms (e.g. maturity and interest rate), and abandoning the previous borrowing strategy under the back-to-back approach , where the Commission had borrowed and lent to member states or non-EU countries on the same terms; highlights that with the new strategy the EU budget is set to face higher interest rate risks;

Or. en

Amendment 148

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33. Notes with concern that the total exposure of the Union budget because of guarantees and contingent liabilities for loans rose to EUR 298,0 billion; notes that the Court received information from the Commission that indicates that the exposure will steadily increase in the coming years, putting additional pressure on the headroom of the budget and further reducing the flexibility of the Union Budget; supports the Court recommendations to the Commission to act more proactively to ensure that its mitigating tools (such as the Common Provision Fund -CPF) have sufficient capacity as well as to provide a more transparent reporting on total annual budget exposure, making its estimate public, and including the exposure from programmes covered by budgetary guarantees (such as EFSI, InvestEU, EFSD and EFSD+)

Or. en

Amendment 149

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33 a. Notes that the review of the Interinstitutional Agreement on the Transparency Register is due by July 2025; calls on the Commission to ensure the process is as open as possible, to align financial reporting requirements across all categories of registrants (including funding sources and lobbying budgets), and use this opportunity to increase the secretariat’s resources; welcomes the Commission’s ambitious conditionality principles and calls on it to urge the other institutions, to harmonise accordingly; stresses that the review should require registered organisations to disclose whether they have EU staff, Commission members, or MEPs involved in any capacity (e.g., as staff members, executive board members, or advisory members) to enhance transparency and ensure the register is fit for purpose1a;

_________________

1a amendment with input from TI

Or. en

Amendment 150

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33 a. Notes that the exposure of the Union budget to Ukraine more than doubled in 2023 compared to the previous year from EUR 15,6 billion, to €33.7 billion; reiterates its concerns that for the MFA+ support to Ukraine - with a value of EUR 18,0 billion, agreed at the end of 2022 and disbursed throughout 2023 - no provisions were required in the CPF to cover the risks of default, posing a serious risk to the EU budget as expressed in the Opinion 07/2022; draws attention that possible losses related to MFA+ will have to be covered by future Union budgets or by the budgetary ‘headroom’ between the MFF ceiling and the own resources ceiling; invites the Commission to provide additional measures to protect the EU budget from future losses related to the MFA+;

Or. en

Amendment 151

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33 a. Notes the finding of the ECA Special Report 2024 on the EU Transparency Register that 34% of NGOs (1207 NGOs) entered in the Transparency Register avoid listing their financial supporters by self-declaring that they are only representing their interests or the collective interests of their members;

Or. en

Amendment 152

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 35

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

35. Notes with concern that the Court in its Special Report 07/20245observed that a significant share of recovery orders issued between 2014 and 2022 were still outstanding at the time of their audit; further notes that the Commission, in its replies to the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control’s (CONT Committee) written questions for the 2023 discharge, mentions that there are 1 357 overdue recovery orders for a total outstanding amount of approximately EUR 335 million for the period 2014-2023;

35. Notes with concern that the Court in its Special Report 07/20245 observed that a significant share of recovery orders issued between 2014 and 2022 were still outstanding at the time of their audit; further notes that the Commission, in its replies to the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control’s (CONT Committee) written questions for the 2023 discharge, mentions that there are 1 357 overdue recovery orders for a total outstanding amount of approximately EUR 335 million for the period 2014-2023; calls on the Commission to prioritise collecting monies under overdue recovery orders and to keep the Committee on Budgetary Control informed about progress made;

_________________

5 ECA Special Report 07/2024: The Commission’s systems for recovering irregular EU expenditure – Potential to recover more and faster.

Or. nl

Amendment 153

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 36

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

36. Calls on the Court of Auditors to:

deleted

(i) look for ways, together with the Commission, to align their methodologies for the general budget, as in the case of procurement for the decentralised agencies, while respecting the different roles;

Or. en

Amendment 154

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 36 – point i a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(i a) Calls on the Court to qualify the impact of correctives measures on the overall level of error;

Or. en

Amendment 155

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point ii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ii) look for ways, together with the Court, to align their methodologies as regards the evaluation of procurement errors, and the estimation of the level of error for the general budget, as in the case of procurement for the decentralised agencies, while respecting the different roles;

(ii) look for ways, together with the Court of Auditors, to align their methodologies as regards the evaluation of procurement errors, and the estimation of the level of error for the general budget, as in the case of procurement for the decentralised agencies, while respecting the different roles;

Or. en

Amendment 156

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point iv

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(iv) increase the reliability of the forecast of the outstanding commitments with a more realistic estimate of the absorption of Union funds to give the discharge authority a better forecast of the development of the RAL over the years;

Or. en

Amendment 157

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point iv a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(iv a) provide sufficient measures to protect the Union budget from the different risks identified even beyond the RAL, and in particular in relation to the increasing debt, the increased budget exposure including to Ukraine, and the impact of increasing inflation;

Or. en

Amendment 158

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point v

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(v) present, in the Annual Management and Performance Report, a multi-annual outlook on the exposure of the Union Budget to budgetary guarantees;

(v) provide a more transparent reporting on total annual budget exposure by presenting, in the Annual Management and Performance Report, a multi-annual outlook on the exposure of the Union Budget to budgetary guarantees;

Or. en

Amendment 159

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point vi

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(vi) substantially simplify rules and procedures and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies, and all other relevant stakeholders, without compromising the quality of the controls;

(vi) substantially simplify rules and procedures and improve the assistance and ensure consistent and user-friendly guidelines for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies, civil society organisations and all other relevant stakeholders, without compromising the quality of the controls1a;

_________________

1a amendment with input from CSE

Or. en

Amendment 160

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point vi

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(vi) substantially simplify rules and procedures and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs, new applicants, spin-offs, start-ups, administration and payment agencies, and all other relevant stakeholders, without compromising the quality of the controls;

Or. en

Amendment 161

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point vi a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(vi a) make sure that the mitigation tools in place have sufficient capacity to effectively face the exposure risks of the EU budget;

Or. en

Amendment 162

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point vii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(vii) boost efforts to improve transparency in the use of funds, including as regards information on final beneficiaries;

(vii) boost efforts to improve transparency in the use of funds on final beneficiaries, including as regards information on final beneficiaries, including on the funds that are allocated to consultancies in the preparation of policy and legislative proposals1a;

_________________

1a amendment with input from CSE

Or. en

Amendment 163

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point viii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii) re-evaluate its identification of entities as NGOs, ensuring that NGOs that approach Union institutions are registered in the transparency register; further asks the Commission to set up an effective mechanism to ensure that NGOs’ activities are aligned with Union values and demand full transparency on their financing, providing a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered and which should be the condition to approach all Union institutions, bodies and agencies;

(viii) Ensure that all entities that approach Union institutions are registered in the transparency register; Calls on the Commission to work with the other European bodies on a common European definition on NGOs in order to preserve the reputation of NGOs; further asks the Commission to set up an effective mechanism to ensure that NGOs’ activities are aligned with Union values and demand full transparency on their financing, providing a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered and which should be the condition to approach all Union institutions, bodies and agencies;

Or. en

Amendment 164

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point viii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii) re-evaluate its identification of entities as NGOs, ensuring that NGOs that approach Union institutions are registered in the transparency register; further asks the Commission to set up an effective mechanism to ensure that NGOs’ EU-funded activities are not at odds with Union policy and are unrelated to issues in respect of which the Union has no powers, and to demand full transparency on their financing, providing a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered and which should be the condition to approach all Union institutions, bodies and agencies;

Or. nl

Amendment 165

José Cepeda, Marit Maij, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point viii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii) to put in place all necessary means for ensuring that interest representatives that approach Union institutions are registered in the transparency register; further asks the Commission to set up an effective mechanism to ensure that activities of entities in the Transparency Register are aligned with Union values and demand full transparency on their financing, providing a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered and which should be the condition to approach all Union institutions, bodies and agencies;

Or. en

Amendment 166

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point viii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii) ensure that all interest representatives that approach Union institutions are registered in the transparency register; further asks the Commission to set up an effective mechanism to ensure that all interest representatives’ activities are aligned with Union values and demand full transparency on their financing, providing a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered and which should be the condition to approach all Union institutions, bodies and agencies;

Or. en

Amendment 167

Pasquale Tridico, Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point viii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii) make sure that all interest representatives that approach Union institutions are registered in the transparency register; further asks the Commission to set up an effective mechanism to ensure that their activities are aligned with Union values and demand full transparency on their financing, providing a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered and which should be the condition to approach all Union institutions, bodies and agencies;

Or. en

Amendment 168

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point ix

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ix) guarantee adequate resources for the secretariat of the Transparency Register in order to ensure that the entries on the lobbying activities of interest groups, lobbies and NGOs can be checked for accuracy and that lobbying becomes more transparent;

(ix) guarantee adequate resources for the secretariat of the Transparency Register in order to ensure that the entries on the lobbying activities of any kind of organisations such interest representatives, lobbies or NGO scan be checked for accuracy and that lobbying becomes more transparent; calls on the Commission to allocate adequate resources to identify irregularities to guarantee a wide range of search capabilities;

Or. en

Amendment 169

Pasquale Tridico, Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point ix

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ix) guarantee adequate resources for the secretariat of the Transparency Register in order to ensure that the entries on the lobbying activities of all interest representatives can be checked for accuracy and that lobbying becomes more transparent as requested in the Court in Special Report O5/2024 on the EU Transparency Register;

Or. en

Amendment 170

José Cepeda, Marit Maij, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point ix

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ix) together with Parliament and Council, guarantee adequate resources for the secretariat of the Transparency Register in order to ensure that the entries on the lobbying activities of interest representatives can be checked for accuracy and that lobbying becomes more transparent;

Or. en

Amendment 171

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point ix

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ix) guarantee adequate resources for the secretariat of the Transparency Register in order to ensure that the entries on the lobbying activities of all interest groups can be checked for accuracy and that lobbying becomes more transparent;

Or. en

Amendment 172

Pasquale Tridico, Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point x

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(x) require NGOs to list their financial supporters by self-declaring that they are only representing their interests or the collective interests of their members and to require all NGOs to list their financial supporters in the EU Transparency Register, even if they state in that register that they are only representing the interests of their own members (as observed by the Court in Special Report 2024 on the EU Transparency Register that 34 % of NGOs (1207 NGOs) made entries in the Transparency Register avoid this);

(x) require all interest representatives to list their financial supporters in the EU Transparency Register

Or. en

Amendment 173

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point x

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(x) Close the loophole in the Transparency Register whereby NGOs avoid listing their financial supporters by self-declaring that they are only representing their interests or the collective interests of their members; notes that according to the Court, 34% of NGOs (1207 NGOs) are currently avoiding any kind of financial declaration, which makes it impossible to check from whom and which interest they are financed; calls on the Commission to clarify together with the other institutions that all entities have to declare their largest financial sources in the Transparency Register; furthermore, urges all NGOs having avoided listing their financial resources by self-declaration to declare them voluntarily before the inter-institutional agreement is amended;

Or. en

Amendment 174

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point x

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(x) require all registrants, including those declaring as representing their interests or the collective interests of their members, to list their financial supporters in the EU Transparency Register, given that organisations self-declaring under this category currently do not have to disclose this information1a;

_________________

1a amendment with input from CSE and TI

Or. en

Amendment 175

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point x

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(x) require NGOs to list their financial supporters by self-declaring that they are only representing their interests or the collective interests of their members and to require all NGOs to list their supporters and the corresponding amount in the EU Transparency Register, even if they state in that register that they are only representing the interests of their own members (as observed by the Court in Special Report 2024 on the EU Transparency Register that 34 % of NGOs (1207 NGOs) made entries in the Transparency Register avoid this); require NGOs to report this information on the first page of their website;

Or. fr

Amendment 176

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point x

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 177

José Cepeda, Carla Tavares, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point x

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(x) require interest representatives in the Transparency Register to list their financial supporters by self-declaring that they are only representing their interests or the collective interests of their members and to propose an amendment to the Annex II to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 to require them to list their financial supporters in the EU Transparency Register, even if they state in that register that they are only representing the interests of their own members;

Or. en

Amendment 178

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point xi

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(xi) continue to support Member States in improving both the quality and the quantity of checks and to share best practices in the fight against fraud;

(xi) continue to support Member States in improving both the quality and the quantity of checks and to share best practices in the fight against fraud and corruption;

Or. en

Amendment 179

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – point xii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(xii) improve the situation concerning recovery orders and work on the implementation of corporate escalation mechanisms;

(xii) Address the situation regarding late recovery orders and to take all necessary measures to recover the majority of the amount outstanding for the period 2014-2023, and keep the discharge authority informed on the progress made in recovering the sums;

Or. en

Amendment 180

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

cap the EU borrowing over each MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 181

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

38. Welcomes that for 2023, the Court is also able to issue a clean opinion on the legality and regularity of revenue; at the same time, stresses that the problems with customs duties not being declared or being incorrectly declared (a customs gap) leading to a shortfall in collected import duties has been a persistent problem for many years and could potentially entail a loss of traditional own resources for the Union and for the Member States;

38. Welcomes that for 2023, the Court is also able to issue a clean opinion on the legality and regularity of revenue; at the same time, stresses that the problems with customs duties not being declared or being incorrectly declared (a customs gap) leading to a shortfall in collected import duties has been a persistent problem for many years and entails a yearly loss of 89 billion EUR (2022) in traditional own resources for the Union and for the Member States ; highly recommends the Commission to stop milking the Member States with new taxes and fill the holes in the existing ones;

Or. en

Amendment 182

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

39 a. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors has highlighted the risks to the EU's financial interests from inadequate or ineffective customs controls of imported goods ; commends the efforts made by OLAF on the fight against Fraud linked to customs duties and VAT;Underlines the rise of the ecommerce and the online platforms risks due to potential security and safety threats and risk of non-compliance with EU taxation and customs rules, product standards, intellectual property rights, prohibitions and restrictions.

Or. en

Amendment 183

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Filip Turek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

41. Notes with satisfaction that the new own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste generated by Member States in 2023 amounted to EUR 7,2 billion, equivalent to 4,0 % of the EU’s total revenue; further notes that the Court identified7some problems related to the reliability and comparability of data; stresses that it provides an excellent example of a new own resource, as it creates positive incentives for Member States to reduce the volume of non-recycled plastic packaging while at the same time generating a new revenue stream for the Union;

_________________

7 ECA Special Report 16/2024: EU revenue based on non‑recycled plastic packaging waste – A challenging start hindered by data that is not sufficiently comparable or reliable.

Or. fr

Amendment 184

Dick Erixon, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

41. Notes with satisfaction that the new own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste generated by Member States in 2023 amounted to EUR 7,2 billion, equivalent to 4,0 % of the EU’s total revenue; further notes that the Court identified7 some problems related to the reliability and comparability of data; stresses that it provides an excellent example of a new own resource, as it creates positive incentives for Member States to reduce the volume of non-recycled plastic packaging while at the same time generating a new revenue stream for the Union;

41. Notes with satisfaction that the new own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste generated by Member States in 2023 amounted to EUR 7,2 billion, equivalent to 4,0 % of the EU’s total revenue; further notes that the Court identified7 some problems related to the reliability and comparability of data; stresses that it provides a disastrous example of a new own resource, as it creates wrong incentives for Member States to dump the waste outside the European Union or underreport the amount of plastic waste to avoid high payment; reminds that the plastic tax collection gap was compensated by the GNI own resource, which created extra pressure on the net payers;

_________________

7 ECA Special Report 16/2024: EU revenue based on non‑recycled plastic packaging waste – A challenging start hindered by data that is not sufficiently comparable or reliable.

Or. en

Amendment 185

Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

42. Stresses that the Commission’s proposals concerning new own resources from 2021 comprising three elements, the first based on revenues from emissions trading (ETS), the second drawing on the resources generated by the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism, and the third based on the share of residual profits from multinationals that will be re-allocated to EU Member States under the OECD/G20 agreement on a re-allocation of taxing rights (“Pillar One”) are obvious candidates for such new resources; at the same time, points out that other sources might also be considered if they should prove to be easier for Member States to approve;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 186

Ondřej Knotek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

42. Stresses that the Commission’s proposals concerning new own resources from 2021 comprise three elements, the first based on revenues from emissions trading (ETS), the second drawing on the resources generated by the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism, and the third based on the share of residual profits from multinationals that will be re-allocated to EU Member States under the OECD/G20 agreement on a re-allocation of taxing rights (“Pillar One”); points out that other sources might also be considered if they should prove to be easier for Member States to approve;

Or. en

Amendment 187

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 188

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 43 – point i

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(i) increase focus and pressure on the implementation of the Customs Action Plan and not least the proposal for a significant customs reform from May 2023, including the establishment of the EU Customs Authority and EU Customs Data Hub; Ensure that member states implement effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for non-compliance with reporting obligations, the Commission should initiate infringement proceedings in those cases where there is sufficient evidence that member states are implementing a manifestly inadequate penalty system for breaches of the DAC 6

Or. en

Amendment 189

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 43 – point i a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(i a) insists on the importance of intensifying and diversifying the International customs cooperation with trade partners ; and stresses the need to strengthen the fight against cross-border tax and customs fraud in the context of the expansion of the ecommerce,

Or. en

Amendment 190

Ondřej Knotek, Tamás Deutsch, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 43 – point iii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(iii) continue work towards the introduction of additional new own resources;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 191

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 43 – point iii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(iii) continue work towards the introduction of additional new own resources;

deleted

Or. nl

Amendment 192

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

44 a. Is concerned that the existing scattered absorption rates and disparities among Member States accessing the RRF funds will lead to distortion in fair competition among companies in the EU as over 72% of the disbursed RRF funds were received by only four Member States and only less than 4% of the funds were disbursed to 15 Member States as of 9 January 2025, causing significant tensions at the Single Market;

Or. en

Amendment 193

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

44 b. Recalls the Treaty on the European Union, which sets out that the EU and its institutions shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government; considers that failing to do so will significantly undermine the functioning of the Single Market;

Or. en

Amendment 194

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

46. Notes that the Court estimates that the level of error in spending on ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ in 2023 was material at 3,3 %; notes the Court’s observation that research and innovation expenditure is most affected by error, particularly in the area of personnel costs; further notes that the Commission estimates the risk at payment as 1,4 % for this heading, which is in the lower half of the range of the Court’s estimate; is concerned by the Court’s conclusion that the Commission’s risk at payment for this heading is an underestimate;

_________________

1a ECA 2023 Annual Report para 1.35

Or. en

Amendment 195

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

48. Highlights the importance of EU research and innovation (R&I) funding programmes for the scientific, societal, economic and technological development of the Union, reducing inequalities, achieving the green and digital transitions and decreasing the Union’s energy dependency on Russia; recalls that Horizon Europe is the most significant research and innovation programme in Europe, with a total budget of EUR 95,5 billion for 2021-2027, including EUR 5,4 billion from the NGEU instrument; notes that the RRF has allocated around EUR 48 billion in investments to R&I;

Or. en

Amendment 196

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 49 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

49 a. Highlights the significant need to increase defense-related R&I spending due to current geopolitical conditions, which could serve as an important component of the innovation policy strategy, while also recognizing that publicly funded R&I in general—and defense R&D in particular— is effective in boosting a country's total innovation expenditures within a given industry;

Or. en

Amendment 197

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 50 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

50 b. Condems that in December 2022 the European Commission decided to exclude the Hungarian universities from the Horizon Europe program; calls on the European Commission to immediately withdraw its discriminative decision;

Or. en

Amendment 198

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 50 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

50 a. Condems that in December 2022 the European Commission decided to exclude the Hungarian universities, students, teachers and researchers from the mobility programs; calls on the European Commission to immediately withdraw its discriminative decision;

Or. en

Amendment 199

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 53

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

53. Stresses the crucial role of the private sector in addressing the innovation gap in the Union and improving the Union’s competitiveness and prosperity; believes, in particular, that it is imperative to continue to promote and facilitate as much as possible the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Union R&I funding programmes; notes the Court’s conclusion that SMEs and newcomers are more prone to making errors than other beneficiaries since they lack the experience and resources to administer the funds; welcomes the efforts made by the Commission to specifically support SMEs, for example through information campaigns, contacts with the system of National Contact Points and the dedicated helpdesk of the Research Enquiry Service; considers that the simplification of rules and procedures can be an important driver for increased participation of SMEs;

53. Stresses the crucial role of the private sector in addressing the innovation gap in the Union and improving the Union’s competitiveness and prosperity; believes, in particular, that it is imperative to continue to promote and facilitate as much as possible the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Union R&I funding programmes; notes the Court’s conclusion that SMEs and newcomers are more prone to making errors than other beneficiaries since they lack the experience and resources to administer the funds; welcomes the efforts made by the Commission to specifically support SMEs, for example through information campaigns, contacts with the system of National Contact Points and the dedicated helpdesk of the Research Enquiry Service; considers that the simplification of rules and procedures is the major driver for increased participation of SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 200

Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 53 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

53 a. Recalls the Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal, which calls for putting Europe at the forefront of research and innovation globally, especially in disruptive technologies, and delivering on the objective of meeting the 3% GDP expenditure target on R&D by 2030;

Or. en

Amendment 201

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 57 – point ii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ii) continue to simplify rules and procedures in line with the new financial regulation, to support training sessions and practical information for applicants in Member States, in particular for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, regional NGOs or local action groups;

(ii) continue to simplify rules and procedures in line with the new financial regulation, to support training sessions and practical information for applicants in Member States, in particular for SMEs, new applicants, spin-offs, start-ups, regional NGOs or local action groups;

Or. en

Amendment 202

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 57 – point ii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ii) continue to simplify rules and procedures in line with the new financial regulation, to support training sessions and user-friendly, consistent and practical information for applicants in Member States, in particular for SMEs, spin-offs, start-ups, regional NGOs or local action groups and to encourage applications from beneficiaries in Member States with more limited participation, as well as from smaller entities1a;

_________________

1a amendments with input from CSE and TI

Or. en

Amendment 203

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 58

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

58. Notes that the budget for the programmes under MFF heading 2 ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ was EUR 73,3 billion (38,4 % of the Union budget) distributed as follows: 47,8 % for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and other regional operations, 18,9 % for the European Social Fund (ESF), 9,8 % for the Cohesion Fund (CF), 3,8 % for Erasmus+, 2,1 % for CEF Transport, and 3,8 % for other areas;

58. Stresses the importance of Union cohesion policy for economic and territorial convergence and development in the regions of the Union, as well as for supporting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; notes that the budget for the programmes under MFF heading 2 ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ was EUR 73,3 billion (38,4 % of the Union budget) distributed as follows: 47,8 % for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and other regional operations, 18,9 % for the European Social Fund (ESF), 9,8 % for the Cohesion Fund (CF), 3,8 % for Erasmus+, 2,1 % for CEF Transport, and 3,8 % for other areas;

Or. en

Amendment 204

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 59 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

59 a. Expresses serious concern over the conclusion of the European Court of Auditors, in its 2024 report 1a , that the error rate in EU spending has risen to 5.6% of the overall budget; underlines the European Court of Auditors warning that increasing European debt is placing growing pressure on the EU budget; Urges the Commission to thoroughly consider the findings of the European Court of Auditors and fully implement the recommendations from both its annual and special reports to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of EU budgetary spending.

_________________

1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/AR-2023/AR-2023_EN.pdf

Or. en

Amendment 205

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 60

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

60. Is concerned about the Court’s observation that the significant additional resources made available under the Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU), the approaching end of the eligibility period for 2014-2020 programmes (31 December 2023), and parallel implementation of the NGEU programme have put additional pressure on Member State’s administrations, increasing the risk of errors; is in particular concerned by the practice of reducing Member States’ co-funding, as is the case under REACT-EU, the Coronavirus Investment Initiative (CRII) and CRII+, which reduces the ownership and associated incentives for properly overseeing expenditure; notes from the Commission replies the acknowledgement that some authorities may have carried out less effective controls and verifications due to the heavy overload and increasing pressure of parallel implementation of 2014-2020 programmes and of additional funding under NGEU;

60. Is concerned about the Court’s observation that the significant additional resources made available under the Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU), the approaching end of the eligibility period for 2014-2020 programmes (31 December 2023), and parallel implementation of the NGEU programme have put additional pressure on Member State’s administrations, increasing the risk of errors; is in particular concerned by the exceptional co-financing rate of 100 %, as is the case under REACT-EU, the Coronavirus Investment Initiative (CRII) and CRII+, which reduces the ownership; notes that the proposed crisis measures were considered necessary by the co-legislators to support Member States to cope with the economic and social consequence of the crisis; notes from the Commission replies the acknowledgement that some authorities may have carried out less effective controls and verifications due to the heavy overload and increasing pressure of parallel implementation of 2014-2020 programmes and of additional funding under NGEU;

Or. en

Amendment 206

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 61

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

61. Notes the Court’s analysis of transactions with additional funding through REACT-EU and flexibility through CRII+ and Cohesion’s Action for Refugees (CARE) and their contribution to the estimated levels of error; notes in particular the conclusion that errors found in 100 % EU-funded priorities contributed 5,0 % to the total estimated level of error of 9,3 %; notes that the risks and irregularities identified seem to be associated mainly with the type of actions implemented under emergency procedures during the COVID-19 crisis or correct application of the flexibility introduced in public procurement rules; is concerned that increasing flexibilities, without either decreasing requirements or increasing preventive checks and controls at the same time, contributed to the high error rate; notes that audit and control frameworks were effective in detecting errors and irregularities associated with crisis measures and emphasizes that, while cohesion policy played a crucial role in helping Member States tackle challenges in times of crisis, it should not become an emergency instrument;

Or. en

Amendment 207

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 62

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

62. Notes the Court’s Review 03 “An overview of the assurance framework and the key factors contributing to errors in 2024-2020 cohesion spending” which provides a multi-annual overview covering six years of audit results, including an assessment of management and control issues, aiming to strengthen the assurance model; is concerned by the Court’s conclusion that the assurance framework for cohesion policy has not been effective in bringing the overall level of error below the materiality threshold of 2 %; supports the Court’s recommendation to the Commission to strengthen the implementation of the assurance framework for 2021-2027 cohesion spending, as it is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the EU budget1b;

_________________

1b ECA 2023 Annual Report para 6.56

Or. en

Amendment 208

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 62

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

62. Notes the Court’s Review 03 “An overview of the assurance framework and the key factors contributing to errors in 2014-2020 cohesion spending” which provides a multi-annual overview covering six years of audit results, including an assessment of management and control issues, aiming to strengthen the assurance model; is concerned by the Court’s conclusion that, although the assurance framework for cohesion policy has helped to reduce the level of error, it has not been effective in bringing the overall level of error below the materiality threshold of 2 %;

Or. en

Amendment 209

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 63

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

63. Notes the Court’s observation in its review on the reliability of the work of key actors in the control system for cohesion policy; is concerned by the Court’s finding that during a 6-year period managing authorities, the first line of defence for detection and prevention of errors, are not sufficiently effective in mitigating the inherent high risk of error in cohesion policy; considers it even more worrying that the Court found that the second line of defence, the Member States’ audit authorities, are not able to determine the correct error rate for the packages of expenditure they audit and provide assurance on, since the Court detected additional errors in at least 39 % of these packages; notes that these errors have been detected and reported by the Court annually for more than 6 years and that there is therefore a systemic issue;

63. Notes the Court’s observation in its review on the reliability of the work of key actors in the control system for cohesion policy; is concerned by the Court’s finding that during a 6-year period managing authorities, the first line of defence for detection and prevention of errors, are not sufficiently effective in mitigating the inherent high risk of error in cohesion policy; considers it even more worrying that the Court found that the second line of defence, the Member States’ audit authorities, are not able to determine the correct error rate for the packages of expenditure they audit and provide assurance on, since the Court detected additional errors in at least 39 % of these packages; notes with concerns that these errors have been detected and reported by the Court annually for more than 6 years and that there is therefore a systemic issue; is worried that considering the systematic nature of weaknesses in particular in the audit authorities' work, the extent to which the Commission can rely on the results of their work is very limited;

Or. en

Amendment 210

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 63 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

63a. Calls on both the Commission and the Member States to take responsibility and improve the management and control system for EU expenditure in order to reduce the high error rate to below the 2 % materiality threshold;

Or. nl

Amendment 211

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 65

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

65. Notes the study commissioned by the Committee on Budgetary Control on ‘Lessons learned from the implementation of crisis response tools’ that shows that absorption of uncommitted cohesion resources was supported by the flexibilities introduced under CRII and CRII+; is concerned by the finding of the researchers that quality of fast-tracked projects might not have reached the same level as investments before the pandemic; is further concerned by the researchers’ observation that the risk of low-quality projects is entirely borne by the Union Budget, because of 100 % EU-funding in CRII, CRII+ and REACT-EU; considers that 100 % EU-funding might help absorption, but that absorption is not a goal in itself;

65. Notes with regret the conclusions of the study commissioned by the Committee on Budgetary Control on ‘Lessons learned from the implementation of crisis response tools’; is concerned by the researchers’ finding that the quality of fast-tracked projects may not have reached the same level as investments before the pandemic; is further concerned by their observation that the risk of low-quality projects is entirely borne by the Union Budget due to the 100% EU funding in CRII, CRII+, and REACT-EU; considers that while 100% EU funding may facilitate absorption, absorption should not be a goal in itself; demands that EU cohesion funds be strictly used for infrastructure and economic development rather than being directed toward ideological programs or politically motivated initiatives; calls for full transparency in fund allocation and an immediate halt to any spending that serves centralist or federalist ambitions.

Or. en

Amendment 212

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 65

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 213

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 66

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

66. Notes the public discussions on the post-2027 multiannual financial framework that may indicate a shift towards a performance-based model, coupling investments and reforms, and a desire to simplify rules and procedures; warns that any decision on the future design of spending programmes must not be to the detriment of oversight and control of Union expenditure in terms of transparency and information at Union level about non-compliance with rules and regulations; considers that the errors identified by the Court and the way the Commission handles those errors are also an indication of a properly functioning management and control system and notes that both institutions stated their commitment to improve the system and bring down the error rate;

66. Notes the public discussions on the post-2027 multiannual financial framework that may indicate a shift towards a performance-based model, coupling investments and reforms, and a desire to simplify rules and procedures; calls on the Commission to prioritoize the financial responses to the current threats resulting from the current geopolitical situation; warns that any decision on the future design of spending programmes must not be to the detriment of oversight and control of Union expenditure in terms of transparency and information at Union level about non-compliance with rules and regulations; considers that the errors identified by the Court and the way the Commission handles those errors are also an indication of a properly functioning management and control system and notes that both institutions stated their commitment to improve the system and bring down the error rate;

Or. en

Amendment 214

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 67 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

67 a. Notes that the ECA error rate is based on a statistical sample whereas the Commission error rate is compiled from the error rates reported by national auditing authorities in member states and calculated only after corrections and repayments;

Or. en

Amendment 215

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 68

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

68. Is concerned about the persistent shortcomings observed by the Court in the work of national audit authorities as visible in the weaknesses identified in the assurance packages, with a residual error rate above the materiality threshold for more than 60 % of the value of assurance packages audited in 2023; stresses with concern that managing authorities consistently do not effectively succeed in preventing or detecting irregularities in expenditure declared by beneficiaries and that this reduces the extent to which the Commission can rely on their work;

Or. en

Amendment 216

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 68 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

68 a. Reminds that in shared management, it is the Commission’s responsibility to make sure that member states set up management and control systems that function effectively during the implementation of programmes; is worried that both the Commission and the court have identified that not all member states’ management and control systems function effectively, thus effecting negatively the reliability of the Commission error rates, as they rely on these national systems, which do not work effectively; calls into question the possibility for the Commission to continue to rely on national systems;

Or. en

Amendment 217

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 68 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

68 b. Considering the weakness in the Member States management and control systems and shortcomings in the Commission’s own audit work, supports the Court evaluation that the Commission’s estimated error rates in the 2023 AMPR and ARRs are not reliable; reminds that the Court’s error rate includes the errors that remained undetected by the Member States and the Commission and demonstrate that the Commission’s error rates are underestimated;

Or. en

Amendment 218

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 69

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

69. Considers that for the single audit approach to work well, and in order to achieve reduced administrative burden for beneficiaries and managing authorities, adherence to audit standards at all levels of control and audit is of essential importance; is therefore worried by the Court’s finding in its annual report that essential supporting documents about compliance with eligibility conditions were not presented by programme authorities and beneficiaries, and also by the finding by the Court presented in its review that insufficient documentation of audit work from audit authorities limits the reliance that can be placed on audit work of national audit authorities;

69. is worried by the Court’s finding in its annual report that essential supporting documents about compliance with eligibility conditions were not presented by programme authorities and beneficiaries, and also by the finding by the Court presented in its review that insufficient documentation of audit work from audit authorities limits the reliance that can be placed on audit work of national audit authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 219

Tamás Deutsch, Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 69 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

69 a. Underlines that any flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges should not undermine the strategic vision of cohesion policy and its traditional role as a long-term investment policy;

Or. en

Amendment 220

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 70

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

70. Recalls that following Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 (CPR) for the programming period 2021-2027, Member States need to comply with horizontal and thematic enabling conditions, which need to remain fulfilled and respected throughout the implementation period of the funds; recalls that when enabling conditions are not fulfilled at the time of submission of a payment application to the Commission for the specific objective concerned, the related expenditure will not be reimbursed from the Union budget until the Commission is satisfied that the enabling condition has been fulfilled; recalls the strong regrets of the discharge authority with the Commission decision of 13 December 20239 considering that Hungary fulfilled the horizontal enabling condition related to judicial independence that enabled the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10.2 billion; reiterates its worries about the lack of adequate control mechanisms or unreliable public procurement procedures to guarantee sound financial management and the protection of the Union budget;

_________________

8 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj).

9 Commission Decision of 13.12.2023 on the reassessment, on the Commission’s initiative, of the fulfilment of the conditions under Article 4 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 following Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 regarding Hungary, C(2023)8999.

Or. en

Amendment 221

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 70

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

70. Recalls that following Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 (CPR) for the programming period 2021-2027, Member States need to comply with horizontal and thematic enabling conditions, which need to remain fulfilled and respected throughout the implementation period of the funds; recalls that when enabling conditions are not fulfilled at the time of submission of a payment application to the Commission for the specific objective concerned, the related expenditure will not be reimbursed from the Union budget until the Commission is satisfied that the enabling condition has been fulfilled; recalls the strong regrets of the discharge authority with the Commission decision of 13 December 20239 considering that Hungary fulfilled the horizontal enabling condition related to judicial independence that enabled the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10.2 billion; notes with concern that since the release of these funds, the Hungarian government has not taken any concrete steps to reinstate the independence of the judiciary but on the contrary, has taken further steps to undermine the independence of the judiciary; reiterates its worries about the lack of adequate control mechanisms or unreliable public procurement procedures to guarantee sound financial management and the protection of the Union budget;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 222

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 70

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

70. Recalls that following Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council8(CPR) for the programming period 2021-2027, Member States need to comply with horizontal and thematic enabling conditions, which need to remain fulfilled and respected throughout the implementation period of the funds; recalls that when enabling conditions are not fulfilled at the time of submission of a payment application to the Commission for the specific objective concerned, the related expenditure will not be reimbursed from the Union budget until the Commission is satisfied that the enabling condition has been fulfilled; recalls the strong regrets of the discharge authority with the Commission decision of 13 December 20239considering that Hungary fulfilled the horizontal enabling condition related to judicial independence that enabled the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10.2 billion; reiterates its worries about the lack of adequate control mechanisms or unreliable public procurement procedures to guarantee sound financial management and the protection of the Union budget;

70. Recalls that following Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 (CPR) for the programming period 2021-2027, Member States need to comply with horizontal and thematic enabling conditions, which need to remain fulfilled and respected throughout the implementation period of the funds; recalls that when enabling conditions are not fulfilled at the time of submission of a payment application to the Commission for the specific objective concerned, the related expenditure will not be reimbursed from the Union budget until the Commission is satisfied that the enabling condition has been fulfilled; recalls that Hungary fulfilled the horizontal enabling condition related to judicial independence that enabled the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10.2 billion; reiterates its worries about the lack of adequate control mechanisms or unreliable public procurement procedures to guarantee sound financial management and the protection of the Union budget;

_________________

Or. fr

Amendment 223

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 70

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

70. Recalls that following Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 (CPR) for the programming period 2021-2027, Member States need to comply with horizontal and thematic enabling conditions, which need to remain fulfilled and respected throughout the implementation period of the funds; recalls that when enabling conditions are not fulfilled at the time of submission of a payment application to the Commission for the specific objective concerned, the related expenditure will not be reimbursed from the Union budget until the Commission is satisfied that the enabling condition has been fulfilled; recalls the Commission decision of 13 December 20239 considering that Hungary fulfilled the horizontal enabling condition related to judicial independence that enabled the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10.2 billion; demands that the blocking of Hungarian cohesion and RRF funds be lifted immediately and those funds must be paid out fully to Hungary;

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 224

Csaba Molnár, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 70 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

70 a. Expresses deep concern over the findings of the 2023 Rule of Law Report regarding the deteriorating rule of law situation in Hungary, particularly the persistent and systemic challenges in the judiciary and media sector; notes with alarm the increasing pressure on judicial independence, including concerns over the selection and promotion of judges, and recent reports of intimidation and interference in judicial decisions, as exemplified by the resignations of judges in protest against political influence; calls on the Commission to ensure a coordinated and holistic approach across all relevant EU funds and legislative tools, emphasizing that Union funds must not be allocated to activities undermining democracy or reinforcing authoritarianism;

Or. en

Amendment 225

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 71

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

71. Recalls that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council10 (the ‘Conditionality Regulation’) establishes a mechanism and measures to protect the Union Budget from breaches of the rule of law when other procedures set out in Union legislation would not protect the budget more efficiently; recalls that this mechanism was activated on 15 December 2022 in the case of Hungary over concerns related to its system of public procurement, resulting in a temporary suspension of 55 % of budgetary commitments for three cohesion policy programmes; recalls that the same regulation, in line with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/209311 (the ‘MFF Regulation’), stipulates that suspended commitments of 2022 (year n), may not be re-entered into the budget beyond 2024 (year n+2) and that therefore 55 % of commitments from 2022, around EUR 1 billion, was decommitted in December 2024; notes that no other procedures under the Conditionality Regulation are ongoing;

deleted

_________________

10 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 1; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj).

11 Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 11; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2093/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 226

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 71 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

71 a. Notes with concern that the head of the Hungarian Integrity Authority, a key institution established as a condition set by the European Commission for the release of EU funds under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, is facing increasing pressure from the Hungarian government to the extent that he has declined invitations from European Parliament Committees and individual Members; acknowledges that the investigation against the head of the Integrity Authority in Hungary is ongoing and stresses that while the European Parliament does not wish to prejudge the outcome, the broader context raises serious doubts about the institution’s ability to function independently; regrets that this development signals a further worrying regression in the Hungarian government’s commitment to anti-corruption and judicial independence;

Or. en

Amendment 227

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 71 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

71 b. Notes that the Commission allocated an equivalent of five full-time staff members to the implementation of the Conditionality Regulation and reiterates the European Court of Auditor’s concerns raised in its Special Report 03/2024 that current staff numbers appear to be insufficient to ensure a strict and coherent application of the Regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 228

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 72 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

72 a. Recalls the Court's 03/2024 special reports conclusions on the application of the Conditionality Regulation, where the Court stated, that the Commission has identified some rule of law challanges for all 27 Member States, but did not document the reasons for not applying the Mechanism for any other Member States but Hungary, the Commission has also not documented any assesment of whether the rule of law challanges identified had an impact on the EU's financial interests, therefore the Commission cannot transparently demonstrate that the EU's financial interests are adequately protected across all Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 229

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 72 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

72 b. Recalls the Court's 03/2024 special reports recommendations on the application of the Conditionality Regulation, where the Court found, that the Commission hasn't systematically identified, assessed and documented, for all member states, how rule of law issues have been addressed under the Conditionality Regulation, nor could the Commission transparently demonstrate that the EU’s financial interests are adequately protected across all member states, the Commission did not assess and document on the basis of clear criteria whether or not identified issues constitute breaches of the principles of the rule of law, as well as the potential impact on the EU’s financial interests;

Or. en

Amendment 230

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 73

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

73. Is further concerned about the re-packaging of investments which would have been eligible for financing under cohesion to the National Recovery and Resilience Plans, thus casting doubts about the real added value of the RRF; further draws the attention of the increasing risks of double funding emerging from such situations;

73. Notes that some investments which would have been eligible for financing under cohesion are included in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans; recalls that the general objective of the RRF enshrined in Article 4 of the RRF Regulation is to promote the Union’s economic, social and territorial cohesion, and that one of its six pillars is specifically dedicated to this purpose; acknowledges that the wide scope of the RRF results in limited overlap with other EU funding programmes, as intended by the co-legislators when establishing the Article 9 of the RRF Regulation, which establishes additionality and complementarity funding as key principles; draws the attention, however, of the risks of double funding emerging from such situations;

Or. en

Amendment 231

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 73 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

73 a. Highlight that the Hungarian Government conducted a series of negotiations with the European Commission in order for Hungary to be able to access the cohesion funds it is rightfully entitled to; notes that, as a result of the dialogue, Hungary undertook to fulfill a package of measures; condemns, that the EC imposes more and more conditions to transfer development funds to Hungary; demands, that the Hungarian cohesion envelope must be protected from the risk of redirecting to other policies or countries and the EC must disburse the financial resources immediately; expects the new European Commission to review the application of the rule of law conditionality rules and to stop the politically selected ideological blackmailing of the Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 232

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 73 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

73a. Calls for the Commission to continue to carry out proper checks in order to minimise the increasing risk of double funding;

Or. nl

Amendment 233

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 74

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

74. Expresses its preoccupation about the visible delays in implementation of cohesion policy in Member States and the lack of capacity of national administrations to deal in parallel with different spending programmes (e.g. cohesion programmes and RRF programmes) covering complementary or even similar objectives; calls on the Commission to ensure that sufficient technical assistance is provided to Member States facing difficulties in order to address existing delays in the implementation of cohesion programmes;

74. Expresses its preoccupation about the visible delays in implementation of cohesion policy in Member States and the great difficulties faced by national administrations to deal in parallel with different spending programmes (e.g. cohesion programmes and RRF programmes) covering complementary or even similar objectives; calls on the Commission to ensure that sufficient technical assistance is provided to Member States facing difficulties in order to address existing delays in the implementation of cohesion programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 234

Eero Heinäluoma, José Cepeda, Csaba Molnár

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 74 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

74 a. Recognises the disproportionate impact of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine on eastern EU regions bordering Russia and Belarus; draws attention to the costs born by these regions and Member States as a result of their shared border with hostile neighbouring countries, notably their need to increasingly direct public funding into security, defence and preparedness, while facing dramatically reduced resources due to a disruption in economic activities, cross-border trade and other exchanges, and in cohesion programmes, particularly Interreg programmes; notes the measures taken by the European Commission to support these regions, notably through flexibilities provided under cohesion policy; welcomes that providing support to eastern border regions most affected by Russia’s aggression is included in the mission letter of the Executive Vice President for Cohesion and Reforms; calls on the Commission to ensure the provision of adequate support for eastern EU regions bordering Russia and Belarus to cope with the disproportionate consequences of the Russian war of aggression, both in the short-term through the 2026 draft budget and in the medium-term through the Commission’s proposal for the next MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 235

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point i

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(i) re-consider the practice of 100 % EU funding in EU crisis response instruments, where increasing pre-financing might provide faster availability of funds, while maintaining a shared financial budgetary control responsibility in implementation of the funds by maintaining financial involvement from both national and Union level;

(i) end the practice of 100 % EU funding in EU crisis response instruments, where increasing pre-financing might provide faster availability of funds, while maintaining a shared financial budgetary control responsibility in implementation of the funds by maintaining financial involvement from both national and Union level;

Or. nl

Amendment 236

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point ii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ii) ensure selection of qualitatively good projects with cohesion policy funds by favouring long-term investments, and duly justifying 100 % EU funding while limiting its application;

(ii) ensure selection of qualitatively good projects with cohesion policy funds by favouring long-term investments, and duly justifying 100 % EU funding while taking careful consideration of the lessons learned from the implementation of EU crisis response tools;

Or. en

Amendment 237

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point ii a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ii a) re-consider the single audit approach until the weaknesses identified in the managing and audit authorities in Member States are tackled;

Or. en

Amendment 238

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point iv

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(iv) calculate and report to the discharge authority the cost of control for all expenditure handled by national authorities concerning cohesion policy funds, and NGEU, and compare these figures with the cost of control when only Cohesion policy funds were handled by the same authorities;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 239

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point vi

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(vi) consider expanding the scope of its desk review of assurance packages to review more quality criteria in addition to consistency to make a reliable estimate of the residual error rate for the assurance package under review, as well as of the risk at payment as a whole;

(vi) expand the scope of its desk review of assurance packages to review more quality criteria in addition to consistency to make a reliable estimate of the residual error rate for the assurance package under review, as well as of the risk at payment as a whole;

Or. nl

Amendment 240

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point vii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(vii) step-up its monitoring of the horizontal and thematic enabling conditions in all Member States to identify potential threats for the protection of the Union Budget;

(vii) step-up its monitoring of the horizontal and thematic enabling conditions in all Member States to identify potential threats for the protection of the Union Budget and ensure enhanced transparency and stakeholder participation in the application of this tool

Or. en

Amendment 241

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point viii

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii) closely align the rule of law report with the Conditionality Regulation and report in more detail on the breaches of the principles of the rule of law that can be used as input to trigger the Conditionality Regulation;

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 242

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point viii a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii a) Reminds in addition to guaranteeing the procedural rights of the Member State concerned, and that any procedure will also be conducted in accordance with the principles of objectivity, non-discrimination and equal treatment of the Member State concerned, and will be conducted according to a non-partisan and evidence-based approach;

Or. en

Amendment 243

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point viii a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(viii a) suspend additional payments to Hungary given the Government's continued efforts to undermine judicial independence and the challenges faced by the Hungarian Integrity Authority;

Or. en

Amendment 244

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point ix

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(ix) provide Member States with increased technical assistance in order to address delays in the implementation of national programmes;

(ix) provide Member States with increased technical assistance in order to address delays in the implementation of national programmes in order to increase the absorption rate;

Or. en

Amendment 245

Tamás Deutsch, Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point x a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(x a) Reminds the Commission on the ECA’s recommendation to provide additional support and guidance, where necessary, to address any remaining uncertainties in the areas identified by Member States to facilitate the disbursements of RRF funds;

Or. en

Amendment 246

Eero Heinäluoma, José Cepeda, Csaba Molnár

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75 – point xii a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

(xii a) ensure the provision of adequate support for eastern EU regions bordering Russia and Belarus to cope with the disproportionate consequences of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, both in the short-term through the 2026 draft budget and in the medium-term through the Commission’s proposal for the next MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 247

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron, Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 76 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

76 a. Emphasizes that CAP funds must primarily serve farmers, ensuring food security, rural development, and economic stability, rather than financing an excessive and inefficient bureaucratic structure. Calls for a reduction of administrative burdens and unnecessary compliance costs imposed by the EU on farmers, which stifles agricultural productivity;

Or. en

Amendment 248

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 81

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

81. Recalls the farmers’ protests across Europe towards the end of 2023 and early 2024 and the Commission’s response aimed at simplification, in particular for small farmers, and increasing discretionary powers for Member States; commends the Commission for its targeted approach, especially concerning the distinction between farm size in terms of agricultural land and number of farms; cautions that discretion given to Member States should also be accompanied by thorough oversight by the Commission;

81. Recalls the farmers’ protests across Europe towards the end of 2023 and early 2024 and the Commission’s response aimed at simplification, in particular for large and intensive farmers, and increasing discretionary powers for Member States and massively lowering environmental ambition by granting numerous exemptions or shifting from mandatory to voluntary environmental requirements; notes the Commission's especially concerning the distinction between farm size in terms of agricultural land and number of farms; cautions that discretion given to Member States should not mean lowering ambition and should also be accompanied by thorough oversight by the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 249

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 81

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

81. Recalls the farmers’ protests across Europe towards the end of 2023 and early 2024 and the Commission’s response aimed at simplification, in particular for small farmers, and increasing discretionary powers for Member States; commends the Commission for its targeted approach, especially concerning the distinction between farm size in terms of agricultural land and number of farms;

Or. fr

Amendment 250

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 81

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

81. Recalls the farmers’ protests across Europe towards the end of 2023 and early 2024 and the Commission’s response aimed at simplification, in particular for small farmers, and increasing discretionary powers for Member States; stresses that simplification should not come at the expense of lowering environmental and climate objectives; acknowledges Commission’s targeted approach, especially concerning the distinction between farm size in terms of agricultural land and number of farms; cautions that discretion given to Member States should also be accompanied by thorough oversight by the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 251

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 84

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

84. Notes the Court’s Special Report 20/2024 on Common Agriculture Policy Plans and the Commission’s reply; notes the Court’s conclusion that the Plans for 2023-2027 are greener than in the previous CAP period; is however concerned that key elements for assessing green performance are missing; considers that plans need to account for specific situations in specific Member States and that therefore a certain level of divergence is even desirable, is however worried that divergence in ambitions may mean that there is no level playing field for farmers across Member States; is further disappointed by the Court’s finding that although the new monitoring framework has been simplified, the CAP objectives lack clarity and indicators focus on outputs rather than results, and that important result indicators are missing; considers this a common problem with the ongoing efforts to introduce performance-based instruments by the Commission;

84. Notes the Court’s Special Report 20/2024 on Common Agriculture Policy Plans and the Commission’s reply; notes the Court’s conclusion that the Plans for 2023-2027 are greener than in the previous CAP period but do not match the EU’s ambitions for the climate and the environment; is however concerned that key elements for assessing green performance are missing; considers that plans need to account for specific situations in specific Member States and that therefore a certain level of divergence is even desirable, is however worried that divergence in ambitions may lead to a race to the bottom in terms of environment, climate and biodiverstiy; is further disappointed by the Court’s finding that although the new monitoring framework has been simplified, the CAP objectives lack clarity and indicators focus on outputs rather than results, and that important result indicators are missing; notes that the Court recommend the Commission to promote exchange of best green practices in the Plans and strengthening the future CAP monitoring framework for the climate and the environment;

Or. en

Amendment 252

José Cepeda

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 84

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

84. Notes the Court’s Special Report 20/2024 on Common Agriculture Policy Plans and the Commission’s reply; stresses the importance of ensuring that all key elements for assessing performance are provided; considers that plans need to account for specific situations in specific Member States and that therefore a certain level of divergence is even desirable, is however worried that divergence in ambitions may mean that there is no level playing field for farmers across Member States; is further disappointed by the Court’s finding that although the new monitoring framework has been simplified, the CAP objectives lack clarity and indicators focus on outputs rather than results, and that important result indicators are missing; considers this a common problem with the ongoing efforts to introduce performance-based instruments by the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 253

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 a. Recognises the contribution that a large variety of projects in LIFE programs has successfully made since 1992 to nature and biodiversity, circular economy and quality of life, climate change mitigation and adaptation; calls on the Commission to identify high quality applications in the different LIFE programs with the goal to implement constructive new and innovative ideas to tackle the challenges of climate change and protect biodiversity;

Or. en

Amendment 254

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 c. Notes that the indicative budget for the LIFE Programme was 44 million Euros for 3 years; notes that only 34 organisations were selected to be funded in 2022 to 2024; expresses the wish for more practical, problem-solving projects with concrete results; notes according to CINEA that the average policy shares in the operating grants from 2022 to 2024 were62% for the environment, 28% for climate action and 10% for clean energy; regrets that only 10% were dedicated to clean energy;

Or. en

Amendment 255

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 e (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 e. Notes that members of the Budgetary Control Committee discovered the unacceptable content in the work packages of some contracts between DG ENV/CINEA and NGOs after receiving a whistle blower report in the summer of 2023;

Or. en

Amendment 256

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 f (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 f. Emphasises that members of the Budgetary Control Committee were shocked at the content of work packages in contracts between activist networks and DG ENV/CINEA in the LIFE Programme;

Or. en

Amendment 257

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 g (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 g. Notes that the Budgetary Control Committee reported the problematic content to the Commission in February 2024; observes that the Commission had not been aware of the problem previously;

Or. en

Amendment 258

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 h (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 h. Emphasises that members of the Budgetary Control Committee also looked at a sampling of contracts in the Horizon Programme, but found no issue in the content of the contracts;

Or. en

Amendment 259

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 i (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 i. Observes that the Commission provided responses to the written questions of the Budgetary Control Committee both on MFF Heading 3: Natural Resources and the Environment and questions to the Commission in general; expresses regret however at the lack of adequate detailed information in the responses;

Or. en

Amendment 260

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 85 j (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

85 j. Notes that the hearings on MFF Heading 3 on 12 November 2024, with Secretary General Juhanson on 5 November, and with Commissioner Serafin on 9 December provided some useful information;

Or. en

Amendment 261

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Michal Wiezik

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86. Expresses its deep concern on several grant agreements concerning operating grants between the Commission’s Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) and civil society organisations, including NGOs, and networks of non-profit making entities under the LIFE programme; notes that some of these agreements include in their description of proposed activities advocacy actions or lobbying (such as providing voting recommendations), towards Commission services and/or (Members of) the European Parliament and other EU Institutions or their representatives; considers that this practice gives the impression that the Commission explicitly pays these entities and organisations to influence decision making and may contradict the principle of separation of powers between EU Institutions;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 262

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 263

José Cepeda, Carla Tavares, Marit Maij

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86. Acknowledges the allegations about certain operating grant agreements between the European Union Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) and interest representatives that some of these agreements include ‘work plans’ containing certain advocacy actions or lobbying towards EU Institutions or their representatives; acknowledges that work programmes are drafted and submitted by the applicant entities; recalls that democracy and pluralism are fundamental values of the EU enshrined in Article 2 TEU; further recalls that, in line with Article 11 TEU, Union institutions must, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action in order to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue; takes note that one of the eligibility criteria to apply for the operating grants is to be independent, in particular from government, other public authorities, and from political or commercial interests; also takes note that all contracts include clauses stating that the activities of the funded entities do not represent or commit the Commission, as granting authority;

Or. en

Amendment 264

Olivier Chastel

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 265

Daniel Freund

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86. Notes several grant agreements concerning operating grants between the Commission’s Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) and civil society organisations, including NGOs, and networks of non-profit making entities under the LIFE programme; notes that some of these agreements include in their description of proposed activities advocacy actions or lobbying (such as providing voting recommendations), towards Commission services and/or (Members of) the European Parliament and other EU Institutions or their representatives;;

Or. en

Amendment 266

Tomáš Zdechovský

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 267

Pasquale Tridico, Jonas Sjöstedt

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86. Notes that some grant agreements concerning operating grants between the Commission’s Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) and civil society organisations under the LIFE programme; include in their description of proposed activities direct advocacy actions or lobbying (such as providing voting recommendations), towards Commission services and/or (Members of) the European Parliament and other EU Institutions or their representatives as well as organizing events, social media campaigns and so on; considers that this practice cannot in any case be considered as givesing the impression that the Commission explicitly pays these entities and organisations to influence decision making since the organisations drafting the contracts are the sole responsibile of their programme and the Commission do not provide any direct or indirect indication on their advocacy work;

Or. en

Amendment 268

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 a. Reminds that under LIFE operational grants up to 700.000 euro to civil society organisation in order to balance the representation of public interest in the legislative process, in particular vis-a-vis the private sector; urges the Commission to revise its guideline from May 2024 in order to ensure the continuation of the funding of NGO activities, including advocacy, under the LIFE programme; considers that discontinuing this funding would serious undermine the work of NGOs representing the voice of civil society in the European public space and would represent a severe reputational risk for the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 269

Virginie Joron, Julien Sanchez, Filip Turek, Tamás Deutsch

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29a. Calls on the Commission to lead by example and make transparent and accessible to the discharge authority, the European Court of Auditors and the general public all the contracts that the Commission has concluded and will continue to conclude with NGOs, in order to be able to objectively quantify the number of texts covered by this process and the amounts;

Or. fr

Amendment 270

Tamás Deutsch, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 a. Rejects the imposition of ideological environmental conditions that increase production costs and weaken Europe’s food sovereignty. Insists that green transition policies in agriculture must be voluntary, based on economic feasibility, and not forced upon Member States under CAP funding conditions;

Or. en

Amendment 271

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 a. Stresses that the content of these contracts violates the fundamental principle of the separation of powers that should contain a clear distinction between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches;

Or. en

Amendment 272

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 b. Underlines that operation grants are distributed following an assessment of all public applications - which have to respect strict requirements and criteria for award -and all beneficiaries are publically available while the grants contracts remain confidential: is extremely worried that several of those contracts have been leaked to the media breaching the principle of confidentially under which were made available to CONT Members;

Or. en

Amendment 273

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 b. Stresses that the content of these contracts goes against the principle of mutual respect between institutions, as well as key principles of the EU’s budgetary regulations, such as transparency, the independence of decision-makers, the avoidance of conflicts of interest, accountability for the proper expenditure of taxpayers' money, and several other essential principles;

Or. en

Amendment 274

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 c. Expresses deep concern that contracts with the Commission (DG ENV) lists lawsuits (regarding farmers, different types of companies) in the requirements/goals in their work packages, which could lead to legislative changes and to weakening of fundamental principles of the rule of law and which should lead to legislative changes;

Or. en

Amendment 275

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 d (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 d. Expresses concern that the Commission pays certain entities for their office moves and also for the set-up of their offices, staffing, funding and capacity building; notes that this raises questions about the fair distribution of funds and who should receive funds to have offices equipped;

Or. en

Amendment 276

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 e (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 e. Notes that two other contracts between DG ENV/CINEA and activist networks pay for the lobbying and manipulation of legislative procedures, including rapporteurs and working groups; notes that it is aimed at national representatives, members of parliament and representatives of government, Council working groups and expert groups of agencies, is very irrated that this undermines a proper legislative and a democratic, parliament decision-making and is a use of Commission resources without any transparency;

Or. en

Amendment 277

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 f (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 f. Expresses concern that there are contracts between DG ENV and activist networks where the work packages go against the Commission’s own legislative proposals and violate the principle of neutrality;

Or. en

Amendment 278

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 g (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 g. Notes with concern one problematic contract between DG ENV/CINEA and an activist network which outlines lobbying against Mercosur and other trade agreements in the work packages, specifically for the activist network to lobby DG Grow; is shocked that the activist network received 700 000 Euros of EU funds under this contract;

Or. en

Amendment 279

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 h (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 h. Expresses concern that work packages of some contracts suggested protest camps that ended up being violent in nature;

Or. en

Amendment 280

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 i (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 i. Is strongly irritated about whistle-blower reports that proved that a decision of the ENV committee in the European Parliament about the NRL Regulation should be influenced with the logistical support and the help of Commission staff; notes that the Business and Biodiversity Platform was set up by the Commission; points out that following the whisteblower evidences, Commission staff were using the mailing list and the platform itself to send out mail addresses from MEPs to networks in order to organise mass mailings campaigns to put members under pressure; emphasises that platforms set up and run by the Commission should never be misused to influence a legislative procedure in the European Parliament for lobbying campaigns;

Or. en

Amendment 281

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 j (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 j. Notes that following the explanations in point 3.2 of the Life Application Form for grants, a work package is a sub-division of project as part of the contract between CINEA on behalf DG ENV and an NGO; following these explanations, the applicant must present its projects with subdivision in the workpackes and once implementedthe Commission would assess the implementation in line with the milestones and deliverables indicated in each work package; states that DG ENV/CINEA would have the possibility to decide not to award a grant if it was not in rules with the rules or the code of conduct; concludes therefore that the DG/ENV and the entity receiving funds are both responsible for the content of work packages in grant agreements;

Or. en

Amendment 282

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 k (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 k. Further observes that the work packages are binding as part of the contract. If a work package is not implemented as indicated then this could be grounds for the Commission to withhold funds or ask for their repayment; obliges the Commission to take adequate measures;

Or. en

Amendment 283

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 l (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 l. Observes that the work packages in grant agreement contracts are attached to proposed Key Performance Indicators with which the success of a project is measured, thus making the content of work packages a requirement for the successful fulfilment of the contract;

Or. en

Amendment 284

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 m (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 m. Notes that according to the European Commission official website on the LIFE programme, the programme comprises four subprogrammes: 1. Nature and Biodiversity 2. Circular economy and quality of life, 3. Climate change mitigation and adaptation, 4. Clean energy transition, and that actions supporting this include: strategic nature projects, strategic integrated projects, standard action projects, procurement and other actions; points out that the content in the work package found by members of the Budgetary Control Committee does not fulfill the description of these activities;

Or. en

Amendment 285

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 n (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 n. Criticises that there should be no institutional funding from the EU LIFE Programme or any other program without traceability of funds;

Or. en

Amendment 286

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 o (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 o. Notes that the lobbying activities between activist networks and NGOSactivities found by the Budgetary Control Committee in contracts between DG ENV/CINEA and activist networks/NGOs are not mentioned in their entries in the Transparency Register;

Or. en

Amendment 287

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 p (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 p. Highlights the need for transparency and visibility of all projects supported by EU funds, points out that according Chapter 5, Article 21 of the LIFE Regulation, ‘recipients of Union funding shall acknowledge the origin of those funds and ensure the visibility of Union funding’; notes also that this is a requirement in grant agreements within the LIFE programme; is concerned by the lack of visibility of the results of these contracts and lack of public access to information about work packages and results of the projects contained these contracts;

Or. en

Amendment 288

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 86 q (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

86 q. Stresses that according to Article 163, Chapter 1, Title VI of the Financial Regulation, ‘all contracts financed in whole or in part by the budget shall respect the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination.’; emphasizes the need for greater transparency with regards to contracts concluding between activist networks and DG ENV/CINEA in the Life Programme;

Or. en