2013 discharge: ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on nanoelectronics
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Ryszard CZARNECKI (ECR, PL) on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013.
The committee called on Parliament to postpone its decision on granting the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013. It made a number of recommendations that needed to be taken into account when the discharge is granted, in addition to the general recommendations that appear in the draft resolution on performance, financial management and control of EU agencies.
· Budgetary and financial management: Members were deeply concerned that the Court issued a qualified opinion, for a third consecutive year, on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the annual accounts, on the grounds of not being able to conclude whether or not the ex post audit strategy provided sufficient assurance with respect to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The qualified opinion put into question the willingness of the Joint Undertaking to be effective and efficient. Members acknowledged that the Joint Undertaking had submitted an action plan which aimed to remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion, and they looked forward to the successful implementation of the entire action plan. They called on the Joint Undertaking to provide a first interim evaluation report on the implementation of the action plan. At the same time, the committee was concerned that there was limited information available regarding the evaluation of the Member States' and AENEAS' contributions corresponding to the actual level of Union payments. It called on the Joint Undertaking to submit a report to the discharge authority concerning the contributions of all members other than the Commission, including the application of the evaluation rules, together with an assessment by the Commission.
· Conflicts of interests: Members acknowledged that the Joint Undertaking had taken comprehensive measures to prevent conflicts of interest and had published them on its website. They called on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about the progress of the database concerning conflicts of interest.
Other observations: Members went on to make a series of observation on the legal framework of the Undertaking, the calls for proposals underway and the system of internal control at the Undertaking. Lastly, they noted that between September 2012 and February 2013, the Commission carried out its Second Interim Evaluation in order to assess the Joint Undertaking and the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and research quality. They took note that the report was issued in May 2013 and contained several recommendations for the Joint Undertaking.