1.

Notes that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) administered a budget of EUR 150 599 614, of which 99,34 % (EUR 149 598 960,09) had been committed and 93,32 % (EUR 146 842 346,23) spent by 31 December 2003;

2.

Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors, for the first time, has evaluated the control environment of all institutions individually and has published their observations in a separate part;

3.

Notes that some of the most important requirements (minimum control standards, charters for financial actors, scope of the internal auditor’s mission) of the Financial Regulation were not fully implemented in 2003;

4.

Recognises in this context that the ECJ nevertheless adopted its new internal financial rules in January 2003 and that it preferred to draft detailed provisions and charters once some experience was gained with the operation of the new system; the documents required by the Court of Auditors were adopted in March 2004;

5.

Is concerned about the ECJ’s statement that ‘(…) there was available to the institution for the application of the new provisions only an extremely limited number of persons with a thorough knowledge of financial systems and backgrounds’;

6.

Is also concerned that the internal auditor could not carry out his work programme in 2003 owing to a lack of staff; welcomes the ECJ’s readiness to forward a copy of the internal auditor’s 2004 work programme; calls on the ECJ to remedy this staff shortage without delay and within the assigned budgetary means; considers that an internal audit capability constitutes a natural and obligatory component of any sound administration;

7.

Notes that, following the observations made by the Court of Auditors, the verification and audit functions in the ECJ have been separated;

8.

Notes that the ECJ negotiated the purchase of site licences for the use of software by restricted procedure without prior publication of a notice, thereby infringing legal provisions currently in force; the ECJ has admitted its mistake;

9.

Remains alarmed about the growing backlog of cases in 2003, although initial indicative figures for 2004 show, with regard to the ECJ, a slight improvement (6):

European Court of Justice:

The main areas concerned were: environment and consumers, agriculture, approximation of laws, social policy and taxation; cases lasted on average two years;

Court of First Instance

The main areas concerned were: actions for annulment, staff cases and intellectual property; cases lasted on average a year and a half;

welcomes the following improvements:

expects the ECJ to set performance targets and to establish action plans to achieve them, with a view to reducing the time span needed to bring pending cases to a conclusion in the years to come;

10.

Will make this issue one of the focal points in the 2004 discharge procedure;

11.

Welcomes the measures taken by the ECJ with regard to the use of official cars for Members, as outlined in its administrative decision of 31 March 2004; recognises that the new provisions are transparent and represent an improvement of the situation; notes that, with a view to reducing the administrative burden, the Court also defrays the cost for 15 000 km, in addition to journeys authorised by travel order, and that the professional use of the car is recorded in the driver’s log;

12.

Notes that Article 6 of the abovementioned decision provides that, where the Members use their official cars for journeys other than those referred to in Article 5 (i.e. journeys undertaken in the performance of official duties covered by a travel order, or based on a standard rate of 15 000 km/year), they are responsible for any related expenditure (tolls, fuel costs and any additional rental charge resulting from mileage in excess of the overall figure of 45 000 km per year stipulated in the framework contract); is of the opinion that the private use of an official car represents an undisclosed benefit-in-kind, which Parliament considers to be inappropriate;

13.

Notes the reply of the ECJ Registrar, according to which he is unable to forward the report under Article 86(4) or the internal auditor’s report as no internal audit report was finalised (7); will therefore pay special attention to these two documents in the 2004 discharge procedure;

14.

Notes that the 2003 annual activity report of the authorising officer was only submitted in July 2004 and does not contain a Statement of Assurance; is of the opinion that the annual activity report should be ready in time for the Court of Auditors’ audit containing a signed statement of assurance as a visible sign of financial responsibility;

15.

Congratulates the ECJ on the comprehensive preparatory work undertaken in 2003 to prepare for enlargement, as shown in the report of the working group; will follow up the measures taken in its 2004 discharge report;

16.

Asks the ECJ to evaluate the implications of the new Financial Regulation for its administrative and judicial work in time for its review in 2005/2006, which should be forwarded to the European Parliament for its consideration;

17.

Notes that the ECJ agreed, during the discussion on 19 January 2005, to answer a number of additional questions in writing in time for the answers to be considered during the 2003 discharge procedure.