2016 discharge: EU general budget, Court of Auditors

PURPOSE: to grant discharge to the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2016.

NON-LEGISLATIVE ACT: Decision (EU) 2018/1325 of the European Parliament on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section V — Court of Auditors.

CONTENT: the European Parliament decided to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2016.

This decision is accompanied by a resolution of the European Parliament containing the observations which form an integral part of the discharge decision in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (please refer to the summary dated 18.4.2018).

Parliament welcomed the Court’s overall prudent and sound financial management in the 2016 budget period while expressing support for the successful paradigm shift towards performance-based budgeting in the Commission’s budget planning.

It asked the Court to provide more detailed data on each institution in order to achieve a better view of the weaknesses in administrative expenditures, considering that country specific reporting by the Court for every Member State would be welcome in the future.

Parliament regretted that prior to 2016, there was a gender imbalance of three women to 25 men within the members of the Court. They welcomed that the number of women went up to four in 2016 and reiterated its support for the criteria for appointment of members of the Court.

Parliament welcomed the good cooperation of the Court with Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, particularly with regard to presenting and following up on the special reports. It finds the cooperation and exchange of practices between the Court and the Member States’ supreme audit institutions very positive.

Parliament reiterated its calls on the Court to inform the Parliament, in compliance with the existing rules on confidentiality and data protection, of closed OLAF cases, where the Court or any of the individuals working for it were the subject of the investigation. It expressed the need to establish an independent disclosure, advice and referral body with sufficient budgetary resources in order to help whistleblowers.

Lastly, it welcomed the Court’s ethical framework to prevent conflicts of interest.