15.7.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 187/170

1.

Grants the executive director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control discharge for the implementation of the Centre's budget for the financial year 2005;

2.

Sets out its observations in the Resolution below;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the Resolution that forms an integral part of it to the executive director of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

15.7.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 187/171

A.

whereas the Court of Auditors stated, that it obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2005 were reliable and that the underlying transactions, taken as a whole, were legal and regular;

1.

Considers that the ever-growing number of Community Agencies and the activities of certain of them do not seem to form part of an overall policy framework, and that the remits of some Agencies do not always reflect the real needs of the Union or the expectations of its citizens, and notes that in general terms the Agencies do not always have a good image or a good press;

2.

Invites the Commission therefore to define an overall policy framework for the setting up of new Community Agencies and to present a cost-benefit study before the setting up of any new Agency, while being careful to avoid any overlap of activities between Agencies or with the remits of other European organisations;

3.

Calls on the Court of Auditors to give its opinion on the cost-benefit study before Parliament takes its decision;

4.

Invites the Commission to present every five years a study on the added value of every existing Agency; invites all relevant institutions in the case of a negative evaluation of the added value of an Agency to take the necessary steps by reformulating the mandate of that Agency or by closing it;

5.

Considers it regrettable, given the growing number of regulatory Agencies, that the negotiations on the draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory Agencies have not yet been concluded, and calls on the relevant departments of the Commission, in consultation with the Court of Auditors, to do their utmost to ensure that the agreement is brought to a rapid conclusion;

6.

Notes that the Commission's budgetary responsibility calls for closer linking of the Agencies to the Commission; calls on the Commission and the Council to take all necessary steps to give the Commission a blocking minority in the supervisory bodies of the regulatory Agencies by 31 December 2007 and to provide for such a minority from the outset when new Agencies are set up;

7.

Invites the Court of Auditors to create an additional chapter in its Annual Report, devoted to all Agencies to be discharged under the Commission's accounts in order to have a much clearer picture of the use of EU funds by Agencies;

8.

Recalls the principle according to which all Community Agencies, whether subsidised or not, are subject to discharge by the Parliament, even where a discharge authority exists by virtue of their constitutive texts;

9.

Calls on the Court of Auditors to perform performance audits for all Agencies and to report back to the relevant committees of Parliament, including the Committee on Budgetary Control;

10.

Notes that the number of Agencies is constantly increasing and that, in accordance with the Commission's political responsibility for the operation of the Agencies, which goes far beyond mere logistical support, there is an even higher need for the Directorates-General of the Commission charged with the setting up and monitoring of Agencies to develop a common approach to the Agencies; considers that a structure similar to the one created by the Agencies for coordination among the DGs concerned would be a pragmatic way forward towards a common approach by the Commission on all matters relating to the Agencies;

11.

Invites the Commission to improve administrative and technical support to the Agencies, taking into account the growing complexity of the Community's administrative rules and technical problems;

12.

Notes the lack of a disciplinary body in any of the Community Agencies, and calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps to ensure that such a mechanism is rapidly put in place;

13.

Welcomes the considerable improvements in the coordination among the Agencies, which allows them to tackle recurring problems and makes cooperation with the Commission and Parliament more efficient;

14.

Takes the view that the establishment by a number of Agencies of a shared support service aimed at making their computerised financial management systems consistent with those of the Commission is a measure that should be taken further and extended;

15.

Calls upon the Agencies to improve their cooperation and benchmarking with actors in the field; urges the Commission to adopt any measures it considers necessary to help the Agencies enhance their image and raise the profile of their activities;

16.

Calls upon the Commission to come up with a proposal to harmonise the format of the annual reporting by the Agencies and to develop performance indicators which would allow a comparison of their efficiency;

17.

Invites the Agencies to present at the beginning of every year performance indicators against which they could be measured;

18.

Invites all Agencies to increasingly use SMART objectives which should lead to more realistic planning and implementation of goals;

19.

Agrees with the Court of Auditors that the Commission also bears responsibility for the (financial) management of the Agencies; therefore, urges the Commission to monitor and where necessary direct and help the management of the different Agencies, especially in relation to the proper application of tender procedures, transparency of recruitment procedures, sound financial management (underspending and overbudgeting) and most importantly the proper application of the rules concerning the internal control framework;

20.

Considers that the Agencies' work programmes should express their contributions in operational and measurable terms and that due consideration should be given to the Commission's Internal Control Standards;

21.

Notes that the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005 was marked by a low rate of commitment (84 %) and a substantial rate of carry-overs (35 % overall and almost 90 % for operating expenditure); notes that this situation was in part due to problems inherent in the Centre's start-up period;

22.

Notes that the Centre's establishment phase was given a further boost by the global concern over a potential influenza pandemic; congratulates the Centre on its ability to consolidate its position in the field of surveillance of communicable diseases in a very short time;

23.

Points out that the Commission (DG SANCO) was responsible for the budgetary management of the Centre in 2005;

24.

Notes that no activity-based management has been brought in, despite the Centre's financial regulation making provision for its introduction, on the lines of that applied to the general budget, with a view to improving the monitoring of performance;

25.

Insists that requests to the Commission for the payment of subsidies should be justified by a forecast of cash needs (6) and regrets that the Centre had no such system for producing forecasts;

26.

Notes that the Centre's financial regulation stipulates that the authorising officer should make a budgetary commitment before entering into a legal commitment in relation to third parties and regrets that no budgetary commitments were made for the Centre's expenditure in 2005 prior to such legal commitments; regrets that for the same period, all the Centre's payments were made by the accounting officer without the authorising officer having issued any payment orders (7);

27.

Notes that contrary to the provisions of the Centre's financial regulation, its accounts were not kept in accordance with the double-entry method during 2005, thus creating the risk of errors; insists that this should be rectified as soon as possible;

28.

Notes that there were shortcomings in the documentation of the Centre's staff selection procedures (lack of formalisation of decisions on the appointment and composition of selection boards, lack of final report by selection boards on their work); insists on the strict application of its selection procedures.