—

having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2010,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2010, together with Eurojust’s replies (1),

—

having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

—

having regard to Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (3), and in particular Article 36 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0128/2012),

A.

whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

B.

whereas on 10 May 2011 Parliament granted the Administrative Director of Eurojust discharge for implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2009 (5), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:

C.

whereas the budget of the Agency for the financial year 2010 was EUR 32 300 000, which is an increase of 14,5 % on the financial year 2009,

D.

whereas the Union’s contribution to the budget of the Agency for 2010 was EUR 30 163 220 compared to EUR 24 799 400 in 2009 (6), which represents an increase by 21,62 %,

1.

Notes from its Annual Activity Report (AAR) that the Agency executed 97,8 % of its commitment appropriations from the operating budget in 2010; notes in particular that compared to 2009 the executed budget increased by:

2.

Acknowledges that the Agency was granted EUR 2 159 000 from the Commission for participation in criminal justice programmes (Joint Investigation Teams) and received 95 % of this amount in 2010;

3.

Establishes from the AAR that six budgetary transfers were made in 2010;

4.

Ascertains from the AAR that automatic carry-overs of the commitment appropriations (excluding grants) increased from 16 % in 2009 to 20 % in 2010 with a total of EUR 6 100 000 in 2010;

5.

Calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the steps taken to avoid carrying forward appropriations; is concerned, in particular, by the excessive carry-overs under Title III, which amounted to 38 % of the Title III total budget, and stresses that this deficiency has been underlined by the Court of Auditors for several years;

6.

Regrets the high level of operational expenditure carried forward to 2011; takes note of the Agency’s reply that this was mainly due to the Organisational Structural Review project, a new computer infrastructure and the costs related to data processing; welcomes the measures to be taken in 2012 by the Agency, especially the establishment of specific procurement plans for each unit; calls on the Agency to implement those measures without further delay; welcomes the assurance that necessary authorisations and commitments for procurement will be granted as early as possible in the year and calls on the Agency to adhere to this assurance;

7.

Acknowledges from the AAR that nine open procedures, seven negotiated procedures, three inter-institutional procedures and one joint procedure with an international organisation were completed in 2010 and resulted in 29 new contracts;

8.

Acknowledges the observations from the Court of Auditors that in one case the evaluation committee failed to apply the weightings published in the tender specifications; therefore calls on the Agency to prevent further similar mistakes and to ensure that the quality standards of procedure used in the tender are respected;

9.

Establishes from the AAR that in 2010, six new exception decisions were entered in the Register of Exceptions, of which four concerned budget, finance and procurement matters and two concerned HR matters;

10.

Notes in particular that, on budget, finance and procurement matters, the four exceptions were respectively related to:

calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the status of the two exceptions, which were still ongoing at the end of 2010;

11.

Notes, with regard to HR matters, that the two exceptions related to:

acknowledges the Agency’s statement that the two situations came to an end on 15 October 2010;

12.

Expresses concern about the fact that the Court of Auditors has once again observed shortcomings in the implementation of recruitment procedures; notes in particular that the level of vacant posts (13 %) is still high, although lower than in 2009 (24 %), in 2008 (26 %) and in 2007 (33 %); accordingly, calls on the Agency to set up a comprehensive recruitment action plan to significantly reduce the vacancy rate and to inform the discharge authority about this;

13.

Acknowledges the Court of Auditors’ observation that, despite the fact that recruitment cannot be made from expired reserve lists, an official was recruited in 2010 using a reserve list which had expired in January 2009 and the extension of which was not accepted; calls on the Agency to ensure that all decisions concerning recruitment are adequately documented to avoid such a situation in the future;

14.

Deplores that fact and calls on the Agency to monitor closely the validity of all reserve lists for recruitment in order to prevent such mistakes in the future; welcomes the Agency’s reply that appointments from a reserve list will only take place after verification of the appropriateness of individual appointments;

15.

Calls on the Agency to desist from such practices and to respect recruitment rules;

16.

Deplores the fact that the evaluation committee failed to apply the weightings published in the tender specifications; welcomes the information given by the Agency that measures have been taken which include submission to the Administrative Director of full documentation concerning the substantial and commercial evaluation for each procurement before any contracts are awarded; welcomes the Agency’s commitment to fair, transparent and accurate procurement, so as to contribute towards the financial credibility of the organisation, and calls on the Agency to take measures to fully ensure that it fulfils that commitment;

17.

Notes from the AAR that the Organisational Structure Review, which started in 2009, continued in 2010, and that a proposal for the Multiannual Staff Policy Plan 2012-2014 and the Establishment Plans for the year 2011 and 2012 were drafted; also takes note that a detailed plan for the implementation phase was submitted by a consultancy by the end of 2010 and ultimately discussed and endorsed by the College of the Agency;

18.

Acknowledges the statement in the Agency’s AAR that its Budget, Finance and Procurement Unit introduced an enhanced method of financial reporting and analysis at Unit level; understands that the Heads of Unit now receive complete information on their spending and commitments by budget line and that the information is issued monthly and quarterly, providing comparisons to the budget for the year and the previous year, by month and cumulatively;

19.

Is of the opinion that a thorough implementation of this method should lead to better budgetary and financial management; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the concrete results following the implementation of this method;

20.

Recalls that the Administrative Director of the Agency is accountable to the discharge authority for the implementation of the revenue and expenditure of the budget and is responsible for putting in place the organisational structure, the internal management and control systems and procedures relevant for drawing up final accounts that are free from material misstatement, and for ensuring that the transactions underlying those accounts are legal and regular;

21.

Acknowledges, however, the Court of Auditors’ observation that the Administrative Director is not de facto responsible for the majority of the daily management decisions, which are taken by the College of the Agency on the basis of the relevant provisions of its founding Decision 2002/187/JHA; calls on the Agency to address and review this anomaly as soon as possible; points out that, if ambiguities persist, the envisaged new Regulation on the Agency should address this structural deficiency;

22.

Notes from the Agency’s statement that its College has no means to redefine the respective roles and responsibilities of the Administrative Director and the College so as to solve the accountability overlap, but that measures have been implemented to ensure that the Administrative Director can act in accordance with his responsibilities;

23.

Underlines the importance of linking the Agency’s indicators to its objectives, budget and AWP in order to allow stakeholders to evaluate the Agency’s performance; urges the Agency, therefore, to inform the discharge authority of the key indicators established by the Agency and their links to its objectives, budget and AWP;

24.

Considers that the Agency’s internal process supporting the establishment of its AWP has a significant impact on the reliability of information that the Agency provides to its stakeholders and to the discharge authority; urges the Agency, therefore, to ensure consistency in its planning, adequate procedures and guidelines, and to furnish sufficient documentation supporting the AWP in order to provide information on all activities carried out and on the resources planned per activity;

25.

Is concerned that the assignment of responsibility for the preparation and adoption of the AWP is not stated in its founding Decision 2002/187/JHA; considers that this may lead to confusion and lack of ownership for the preparation and adoption of the AWP; therefore calls on the Agency to rapidly address this deficiency and to inform the discharge authority of the action taken;

26.

Urges the Agency to take action to ensure that the legal basis for executing its budget is not put in question and that its AWP is complete and contains all the information required (i.e. information on all activities carried out by the Agency and the resources planned per activities);

27.

Calls also on the Agency to establish a multiannual IT strategy plan for both operational and support activities;

28.

Acknowledges that 12 ‘very important’ recommendations from the Internal Audit Service (IAS) are still open, including two that have been reported as implemented by the Agency, and calls on the IAS to clarify the actual stage of their implementation;

29.

Notes that, for eight ‘very important’ recommendations, the implementation is delayed beyond the date defined by the Agency in its original action plan; notes that the delay is greater than 12 months in the case of six of these, relating to:

30.

Urges the Agency to properly address the recommendations issued by the IAS and to inform the discharge authority of the measures taken in this respect;

31.

Draws attention to its recommendations from previous discharge reports, as set out in the Annex to this resolution;

32.

Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2012 (7) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.