17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/1

1.

The Artemis Joint Undertaking, located in Brussels, was set up in December 2007 (1) for a period of 10 years.

2.

The main objective of the Joint Undertaking is to define and implement a ‘research agenda’ for the development of key technologies for embedded computing systems across different application areas in order to strengthen European competitiveness and sustainability, and allow the emergence of new markets and societal applications (2).

3.

The founding members of the Artemis Joint Undertaking are the European Union, represented by the Commission, certain EU Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and Artemis-IA, an association representing companies and other research organisations active in the field of embedded computing systems in Europe. In 2009, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Latvia and Norway also became members of the Joint Undertaking.

4.

The maximum EU contribution to the Joint Undertaking, to cover running costs and research activities, is 420 million euro to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme (3). Artemis-IA is to make a maximum contribution of 30 million euro to the running costs. The Artemis Member States are to make in-kind contributions to the running costs (by facilitating the implementation of projects) and provide financial contributions of at least 1,8 times the EU contribution. In-kind contributions are also to be provided by the research organisations participating in projects.

5.

The Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously on 26 October 2009.

6.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

7.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

8.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (6), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

9.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (8) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

10.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

11.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

12.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

13.

The Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy (9) was adopted by a Governing Board decision on 25 November 2010 and is a key tool (10) for assessing the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The payments made in 2012 relating to certificates of acceptance of costs issued by the national funding authorities of the Member States (NFAs) amounted to 7,3 million euro, which represents 43 % of the total operational payments.

14.

The audit of project cost claims has been delegated to the NFAs. The administrative agreements signed with the NFAs do not include practical arrangements for ex post audits.

15.

The Artemis Joint Undertaking received audit reports from the NFAs covering approximately 45 % of the costs related to completed projects. However, the Joint Undertaking did not assess the quality of these audits. Moreover, by the end of April 2013, the Joint Undertaking had not received information on the audit strategies of all NFAs (11). It was therefore not in a position to assess whether ex post audits provide sufficient assurance as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions (12).

16.

The information available on the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy is not sufficient for the Court to conclude whether this key control tool is functioning effectively.

17.

In the Court’s opinion, except for the possible effects of the matter described in the basis for a qualified opinion in paragraphs 13 to 16, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

18.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinions into question.

19.

Contrary to the Joint Undertaking's financial rules (13), its published 2012 budget did not show differentiated payment appropriations for operational expenditure.

20.

The Joint Undertaking’s 2012 budget included operational commitment appropriations amounting to 55,1 million euro. At the end of the year, the Governing Board decided to reduce the operational appropriations to 39,5 million euro but failed to follow the procedure established in Article 28 of the Joint Undertaking's financial rules (14).

21.

The utilisation rates for (A) operational commitment appropriations (after the reduction of operational appropriations), (B) operational payment appropriations and (C) payment appropriations for administrative expenditure were as follows:

22.

The programme manager’s budget implementation estimates for the end of 2012 and the actual payments under the different calls were as follows:

The above figures are evidence of a low budget implementation rate mainly due to a complex financial process for the closure of the projects.

23.

The Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking envisaged a maximum total budget of 410 million euro to cover operational expenditure. The actual implementation rate and the anticipated value of calls for proposals together represent 206 million euro (15), or only 50,2 % of the total budget.

24.

During 2012, the Joint Undertaking intensified its efforts to establish and implement effective financial, accounting and management control procedures. However, as reported in the Court’s report for 2011, further work is needed, in particular regarding the internal control standards (16) and the financial verification of cost claims (17).

25.

Article 6(2) of the Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking stipulates that it must have an internal audit capability. However, as at the end of 2012, this important element of the internal control system had not yet been set up.

26.

The mission charter of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service was adopted by the Governing Board on 25 November 2010. However, the Joint Undertaking’s financial rules have not yet been amended to include the provisions of the framework Regulation referring to the powers of the Commission’s Internal Auditor.

27.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) establishes a monitoring and reporting system covering the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results.

28.

In the grant agreements signed with beneficiaries, the Joint Undertaking has included specific provisions governing intellectual property rights and the dissemination of research results. Implementation of these provisions is monitored by the Joint Undertaking at different stages of the funded projects.

29.

Nevertheless, the way the results of this monitoring are reported needs to evolve further to fully meet the provisions of Article 7 of Decision No 1982/2006/EC (18) and Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (19)

30.

The Executive Director’s declaration of assurance included in the 2012 annual activity report expresses a reservation concerning the ex post audit strategy. However, the information included in the reservation is not sufficient as regards the implementation of the ex post audit strategy. The main concern is that the Joint Undertaking has not analysed the audit strategies of the NFAs and the audit reports received from them (see paragraphs 13-17).

31.

During 2012, the Joint Undertaking continued to make progress on the formalisation of security policies. However, further work is needed to finalise the Disaster Recovery Plan (20).

17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/10

1.

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, located in Brussels, was set up in December 2007 (1) for a period of 10 years.

2.

The objective of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking is to accelerate the development, validation and demonstration of clean air-transport technologies in the EU for earliest possible deployment (2). The research activities coordinated by the Joint Undertaking are divided into six technological areas or ‘Integrated Technology Demonstrators’ (ITDs).

3.

The founding members of the Joint Undertaking are the European Union, represented by the Commission, and industrial partners as the leaders of the ITDs, together with the associate members of the ITDs.

4.

The maximum EU contribution to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, to cover running costs and research activities, is 800 million euro to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme (3). Other members of the Joint Undertaking are to contribute resources at least equal to the EU contribution, including in-kind contributions.

5.

The Joint Undertaking started working autonomously on 16 November 2009.

6.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

7.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

8.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (6), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

9.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (8) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

10.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

11.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

12.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer

13.

In the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

14.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinion into question.

15.

The 2012 final amending budget included commitment appropriations of 205,4 million euro and payment appropriations of 167,9 million euro. The utilisation rate for commitment appropriations was 84 %, while the rate for payment appropriations was 75 % (9). The lower rate for payment appropriations reflects delays in the implementation of the budget, mainly as a result of delays in the implementation of activities (10) and in the period between the publication of calls for proposals and the signing of grant agreements (11).

16.

During 2012 the Joint Undertaking further improved its management, administrative, financial and accounting procedures. One of the main achievements in 2012 was the implementation of the ‘GMT tool’, a specific application for managing financial information relating to the implementation of grant agreements with members. However, the GMT tool still presents some limitations as regards the completeness of the operational information managed (12).

17.

With regard to the ex ante control of cost claims submitted by Clean Sky members, the audit certificates accompanying the cost claims of two beneficiaries were found to include reservations about the contracts of the staff employed on the project; in one of them the audit certificate also included reservations on the indirect cost rates applied. Despite these significant exceptions, the Joint Undertaking released the payments.

18.

The following weaknesses were noted in respect of the ex ante control of cost claims submitted by Clean Sky partners:

19.

The recommendations made in the accounting officer’s 2012 validation of the underlying systems need to be duly followed up (13).

20.

In 2012, resource constraints within the organisation and the launch of the first ex post audit exercise compelled the internal auditor to focus on the Joint Undertaking’s core processes, including the preparation of the 2012 accounts. As a result, the audit tasks scheduled in the 2012 audit plan could not be completed. A similar situation was reported by the Court in 2011 (14).

21.

In 2012, the Commission’s Internal Audit Service audited the annual planning process for the management of grants (15). The audit concluded that the existing internal control system gave reasonable assurance as to the achievement of the business objectives set for this process, except for two very important reservations concerning delays in the implementation of the programme and the system for evaluating the utilisation of resources (16).

22.

The mission charter of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service was adopted by the Governing Board on 31 March 2011. However, the Joint Undertaking’s financial rules have not yet been amended to include the provisions of the framework Regulation (17) referring to the powers of the Commission’s internal auditor.

23.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) establishes a monitoring and reporting system covering the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results (18).

24.

In the grant agreements signed with beneficiaries, the Joint Undertaking has included specific provisions governing intellectual property rights and the dissemination of research results. Implementation of these provisions is monitored by the Joint Undertaking at different stages of the funded projects.

25.

Nevertheless, the way the results of this monitoring are reported needs to evolve further to meet the objectives of Article 7 of Decision No 1982/2006/EC (19) and Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (20).

26.

Significant progress has been made as regards the IT aspects of the Joint Undertaking’s business continuity plan and disaster recovery plan. According to the Joint Undertaking, these plans will be completed by the end of 2013.

17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/18

1.

The European Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Nanoelectronics (ENIAC Joint Undertaking), located in Brussels, was set up in December 2007 (1) for a period of 10 years.

2.

The main objective of the Joint Undertaking is to define and implement a ‘research agenda’ for the development of key competences for nanoelectronics across different application areas in order to strengthen European competitiveness and sustainability and allow the emergence of new markets and societal applications (2).

3.

The founding members of the Joint Undertaking are the European Union, represented by the Commission, certain EU Member States (Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and the Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities (AENEAS). Other Member States and associated countries, as well as any other country or legal entity capable of making a substantial financial contribution to the achievement of the Joint Undertaking’s objectives, may become members of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

4.

The maximum EU contribution to the ENIAC Joint Undertaking, to cover running costs and research activities, is 450 million euro to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme (3). AENEAS is to make a maximum contribution of 30 million euro to the running costs of the Joint Undertaking. ENIAC Member States are to make in-kind contributions to the running costs (by facilitating the implementation of projects), and to provide financial contributions of at least 1,8 times the EU contribution. Research organisations participating in projects are also to provide in-kind contributions, which must be at least equal to the combined contributions of the Commission and the Member States.

5.

The Joint Undertaking was granted financial autonomy on 26 July 2010.

6.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

7.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

8.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (6), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

9.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (8) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

10.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

11.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

12.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

13.

The Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy (9) was adopted by a Governing Board decision on 18 November 2010 and is a key tool (10) for assessing the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The payments made in 2012 against certificates of acceptance of costs issued by the national funding authorities (NFAs) of the Member States amounted to 8,2 million euro, which represents 42 % of the total operational payments.

14.

The administrative agreements established between the Joint Undertaking and the NFAs of the Member States provide in principle that the NFAs will perform audits on behalf of the Joint Undertaking. The Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy relies heavily on the NFAs to audit project cost claims. However, in 2012 the European Commission’s Internal Audit Service conducted a consultancy study on assessing the Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy and the audit strategies of ENIAC Member States and highlighted that the design of the ex post audit system should be reviewed and complemented to ensure its adequacy to fulfil its overall objective (11).

15.

In 2012, the Joint Undertaking carried out a limited review of cost claims (12) and on this basis concluded in its annual activity report that the error rate in the programme is below 2 % However, this exercise did not include any audits and did not provide assurance as to the regularity of the cost claims reviewed. By the end of the Court’s audit (September 2013), the information available on the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy was not sufficient for the Court to conclude whether this key control is functioning effectively.

16.

In the Court’s opinion, except for the possible effects of the matter described in the basis for a qualified opinion in paragraphs 13 to 15, the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

17.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinions into question.

18.

The 2012 final budget included commitment and payment appropriations of 128 million euro and 42 million euro respectively. The utilisation rates for the available commitment and payment appropriations were 100 % and 52 % (13) respectively. Of the 125,5 million euro in commitment appropriations available for operational activities, 17,6 million euro was implemented as a global commitment for the first 2012 call for proposals, and 107,9 million euro as a global commitment for the second 2012 call for proposals. The grant agreements for these two calls for proposals were signed in early 2013, and the average time between the launch of a call and the signing of agreements was 12 months.

19.

The control weaknesses that were detected by the 2011 audit regarding the decommitment of unused appropriations persisted in 2012. The unused global commitment of 2,8 million euro assigned to operational activities for 2010, which came with a final implementation date of 31 December 2011, had not been decommitted by the end of 2012.

20.

The 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 calls for proposals resulted in grant agreements totalling 170,2 million euro, which represents 39 % of the maximum EU contribution to the Joint Undertaking for research activities (14). In 2012, two calls for proposals were launched for a total of 125,4 million euro, and in 2013 two calls have so far been launched for 39,7 million euro. During 2013, an additional call for proposals worth 104,7 million euro (23,8 %) would have to be launched to make full use of the available EU contribution of 440 million euro.

21.

The mission charter of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service was adopted by the Governing Board on 18 November 2010. However, the Joint Undertaking’s financial rules have not yet been amended to include the provisions of the framework Regulation (15) referring to the powers of the Commission’s internal auditor.

22.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) establishes a monitoring and reporting system covering the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results.

23.

In the grant agreements signed with beneficiaries, the Joint Undertaking has included specific provisions governing intellectual property rights and the dissemination of research results. Implementation of these provisions is monitored by the Joint Undertaking at different stages of the funded projects.

24.

Nevertheless, the way the results of this monitoring are reported needs to evolve further to meet the provisions of Article 7 of Decision No 1982/2006 (16) and Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (17).

25.

The Joint Undertaking’s statutes stipulate that the financial contributions from ENIAC Member States should amount to at least 1,8 times (18) the EU’s financial contribution, while the Joint Undertaking’s grants may reach a maximum of 16,7 % of the total eligible project costs. For the first seven calls for proposals, the financial contribution from ENIAC Member States was 1,41 times the EU’s financial contribution (1,55 times in 2011).

26.

The Joint Undertaking’s accounting officer validated the financial and accounting systems (ABAC and SAP) in 2012. However, the process providing financial information on the management of cost claims received from the NFAs, has not yet been validated.

27.

Since April 2012 the Joint Undertaking has had an internal audit capability as required by Article 6(2) of the Council Regulation setting it up.

28.

The disaster recovery plan was finalised and successfully tested in 2012.

—

the Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy does not include practical details for its implementation,

—

the Joint Undertaking and the NFAs failed to conclude specific agreements under which the latter would perform financial audits.

17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/25

1.

The European Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (IMI Joint Undertaking), located in Brussels, was set up in December 2007 (1) for a period of 10 years.

2.

The objective of the IMI Joint Undertaking is to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development process, with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector produce more effective and safer innovative medicines (2).

3.

The founding members of the Joint Undertaking are the European Union, represented by the Commission, and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Any legal entity directly or indirectly supporting research and development in a Member State or in a country associated with the Seventh Framework Programme (3) may apply to become a member of the IMI Joint Undertaking.

4.

The maximum EU contribution to the IMI Joint Undertaking, to cover running costs and research activities, is 1 billion euro to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme. The EU and EFPIA, as founding members, are to contribute equally to the running costs, each with an amount not exceeding 4 % of the total EU contribution. Other members are to contribute to the running costs in proportion to their contribution to research activities. The research companies which are members of EFPIA are to contribute to the funding of research activities through in-kind contributions (4) at least equal to the EU financial contribution (5).

5.

The Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously on 16 November 2009.

6.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

7.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

8.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (8), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

9.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (10) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

10.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

11.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

12.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

13.

The Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy (11) was adopted by a Governing Board decision on 14 December 2010 and is a key tool for assessing the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. 56 ex post audits had been completed as of June 2013, covering 4,4 million euro (37,3 % of the accepted IMI JU’s contribution for the first call validated by June 2011) (12). The detected error rate resulting from these audits was 5,82 %.

14.

In the Court’s opinion, except for the possible effects of the matter described in paragraph 13, the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

15.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinions into question.

16.

The 2012 annual budget and implementation plan were adopted by the Governing Board on 22 December 2011. For 2012, where operational activities are concerned, IMI achieved a 96 % execution rate for commitment appropriations (351 million euro) and a rate of 100 % for payment appropriations (103 million euro). Despite this high level of budgetary execution, a significant amount in commitment appropriations (162 million euro) is still no more than a global figure, meaning that, while calls have been launched, no corresponding grant agreements have been signed. IMI’s financial statements show 543 million euro of carried-forward contractual obligations, which indicates a significant need for funding until 2017.

17.

A high level of payment and commitment appropriations for administrative expenditure in 2012 were still unused at year’s end (26,81 % of commitment appropriations and 39,8 % of payment appropriations).

18.

In 2012, the Joint Undertaking launched four calls for proposals and signed 11 grant agreements. In 2012 it committed 351 million euro, or almost 37 % of its total available budget (960 million euro maximum funding stipulated in Regulation (EC) No 73/2008), for research activities. The time needed to sign agreements decreased in 2012, from 413 days for the final grant agreements under the fourth call to 161 days for the sixth call.

19.

At the end of 2012, the cumulative total of approved commitments for research costs was 736 million euro. IMI needs in principle to commit a further 224 million euro for research activities (23 % of the 960 million euro maximum) by the end of 2013, and EFPIA members need to commit an equivalent amount in kind. By the end of 2012 EFPIA had committed 706 million euro, and it now needs to commit 254 million euro more to match IMI’s 960 million euro contribution.

20.

In 2012 the Joint Undertaking has continued developing adequate and comprehensive internal control systems. Nevertheless, further work is needed in documenting and updating operational and administrative procedures (especially for ex post and accounting closure activities), which will mitigate the risks of error and inconsistent practices.

21.

In 2011, the Commission’s Internal Audit Service carried out a risk assessment exercise, and on 3 November 2011 the strategic audit plan for 2012-2014 was approved by the Governing Board.

22.

The mission charter of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service was adopted by the Governing Board on 8 March 2011. However, the Joint Undertaking’s financial rules have not yet been amended to include the provisions of the framework Regulation (13).

23.

In 2012 the Commission’s Internal Audit Service carried out an assurance review of IMI’s negotiation, grant agreement preparation and pre-financing processes. The IAS concluded that the existing internal controls provided reasonable assurance as to whether, with the exception of specific issues related to the management of conflicts of interests, documentation of the negotiation process and the related controls, and an IT application used during the negotiation process, the business objectives had been achieved. The Joint Undertaking’s action plan to address the IAS recommendations was validated by the IAS on 29 October 2012.

24.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) establishes a monitoring and reporting system covering the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results (14).

25.

In the grant agreements signed with members and other beneficiaries, the Joint Undertaking has included specific provisions governing intellectual property rights and the dissemination of research activities and results, in accordance with Article 15 of the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking. Implementation of these provisions is monitored by the Joint Undertaking at different stages of the funded projects.

26.

The Joint Undertaking regularly presents specific reports on ongoing projects (15). However, as part of its objective to contribute to the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme, which is stated in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2008, the Joint Undertaking should also determine, together with the two Founding Members (the Commission and EFPIA), which information is to be made available for the general monitoring report that is regularly produced on FP7, and for other reporting tools of the Commission.

27.

In 2012 the business continuity plan and disaster recovery plan were finalised.

28.

The accounting officer has reported on the validation of the accounting system on 27 September 2012 and most of the weaknesses identified were addressed by the end of the year. However, the validation of the accounting system does not yet cover ex post audit results.

29.

The methodology for evaluating in-kind contributions (16) was approved by the Governing Board on 11 November 2011. These contributions are validated by way of ex-ante certification and ex post audits. In 2012, the first 14 certified methodologies for in-kind contributions were accepted and the first three ex post audits covering in-kind contributions were launched.

30.

Article 12(5) of the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking does not recognise the right of the Court of Auditors to audit the in-kind contributions of EFPIA companies, although they are recorded in IMI’s financial statements. It is estimated that these contributions will represent approximately 1 billion euro over IMI’s lifetime.

17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/35

1.

The European Joint Undertaking for ITER (1) and the Development of Fusion Energy (F4E) was set up in March 2007 (2) for a period of 35 years. While the main fusion facilities are to be developed at Cadarache in France, the Joint Undertaking is located in Barcelona.

2.

The tasks of the Joint Undertaking are (3):

3.

The members of the Joint Undertaking are Euratom, represented by the European Commission, the Member States of Euratom and other countries which have concluded cooperation agreements with Euratom in the field of controlled nuclear fusion and have expressed their wish to become members (as at 31 December 2012: Switzerland).

4.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

5.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

6.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (7), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

7.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (9) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

8.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

9.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the opinions set out below.

10.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking's annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

11.

In the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the l year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

12.

The comments which follow do not call the Court’s opinion into question.

13.

In the notes to the financial statements, the table and the information included under Heading 4.3.1.1 ‘ITER Procurement Arrangements with the ITER International Organization’ reflect the procurement arrangements signed (column 3) and the procurement arrangements credited so far (column 4). It does not show, however, the degree of advancement of the works in progress. This information is essential to reflect the status of the activities carried out so far by F4E as regards the procurement arrangements signed with the ITER International Organisation.

14.

The utilisation rates for the available commitment and payment appropriations were 99,9 % and 94,5 %, respectively. However, the utilisation rate for the payment appropriations referred to in the 2012 initial budget was 71 % (10). Of the 1 440 million euro in commitment appropriations available for operational activities, only 55,4 % was implemented through direct individual commitments, while the remaining 44,6 % was implemented through global commitments.

15.

The Court of Auditors previously reported that the Joint Undertaking’s internal control systems had not been fully established and implemented. Although significant progress was made during 2012, a number of actions still need to be implemented:

16.

Negotiated procedures constituted 40 % (16) of all operational tendering procedures launched in 2012 (17) (65 % in 2011). The Joint Undertaking still needs to increase the competitiveness of procurement procedures and further reduce the use of negotiated procedures (18). Regarding grants, the average number of proposals received was only one per call.

17.

Grant agreements concluded by the Joint Undertaking do not have a provision similar to Article II.25 of the European Commission’s model grant agreement (19), which stipulates financial penalties for beneficiaries that make false declarations or seriously fail to meet their obligations. In one grant agreement the Joint Undertaking accepted the whole amount of indirect costs as eligible despite a scope limitation in the audit certificate in respect of consumables (20).

18.

The Joint Undertaking has not developed an internal procedure to systematically assess the risk of a payment being made while a non-conformity report is under review. In one payment related to an operational contract, the Joint Undertaking validated an invoice as ready for payment despite a major situation of non-conformity noted in the technical acceptance report, which was still under review by the ITER Organisation at the date of payment.

19.

For joint procurement procedures, the Joint Undertaking has not yet established appropriate criteria to verify whether the procurement rules of the other contracting authority are equivalent to its own, as required by Article 83 of the Joint Undertaking’s implementing rules (21).

20.

As regards the five operational procurement procedures audited, the following weaknesses were identified:

21.

The Joint Undertaking has a system for performing audits (23) at the level of contractors with the aim of checking compliance with the quality assurance requirements (24).

22.

The Joint Undertaking visited six beneficiaries of grant agreements for ex post financial and compliance controls on grants. The errors detected during these controls amounted to 1,3 % of the total value of the cost claims audited (8,3 million euro).

23.

In response to previous Court observations (25), the Joint Undertaking presented, in November 2012 to the F4E Audit Committee and in December 2012 to the Governing Board, two documents on the overall control and monitoring strategy and the multiannual ex post control strategy, by which it extended its quality audits to include the verification of financial aspects of operational contracts.

24.

On 28 March 2012 the Governing Board adopted the F4E policy on intellectual property rights and the dissemination of information, and on 29 June 2012 it adopted detailed rules for implementing this policy. The F4E industrial policy was adopted by the Governing Board on 10-11 December 2012. A plan to systematically monitor and report on the observance of the rules adopted on intellectual property rights and the dissemination of information, and on compliance with the F4E industrial policy, has not yet been implemented.

25.

The 2012 contributions by eight members, totalling 1,2 million euro, were subject to delays ranging from 15 days to 4 months.

26.

F4E has not yet adopted all the rules implementing (26) the Staff Regulations, as required by Article 10(2) of the Annex to the F4E Statutes.

27.

The Council conclusions adopted on 7 July 2010 (27) on the ITER status and the possible way forward approved a final figure of 6,6 billion euro.

28.

On 13 January 2012, the internal auditor’s report on pre-procurement activities for the ITER project pointed out that: (i) neither of the two cost estimating exercises carried out by that date had broken down the cost estimates of the EU contribution to the ITER construction phase by contract; (ii) the Joint Undertaking was exposed to significant financial risks linked to the evolution of commodity prices; and (iii) the Joint Undertaking did not yet have in place a tool for regularly monitoring the validity of the estimates and reporting on potential cost deviations.

29.

In its progress report of September 2012 to the European Competitiveness Council, the Joint Undertaking stressed that there was a risk of cost deviations in the range of 180-250 million euro, or 3 % of the latest estimated project cost of 6,6 billion euro.

30.

On 13 June 2013, the Joint Undertaking completed an exercise to update the cost estimate of the EU contribution to the construction phase of the project. As a result of this exercise, the current risk of increase is estimated at 290 million euro, or 4,4 % of the budget approved by the Council. According to the Joint Undertaking, there has been a significant escalation in the costs of the components to be provided to the ITER project. These are mainly attributed to the system engineering and configuration management processes at the overall ITER project level. The Joint Undertaking also considers the current ITER reference schedule to be unrealistic.

31.

In this regard, the cost estimates for two of the five operational procurement procedures selected for audit were significantly underestimated (see paragraph 20).

32.

According to Article 43 of the F4E Financial Regulation the annual activity report shall indicate the results of the Joint Undertaking’s operations by reference to the objectives set, the risks associated with these operations, the use made of the resources provided and the efficiency and effectiveness of the internal control system. However, because of the date of availability of the revised cost estimation (see paragraph 30), the 2012 F4E annual report does not include up to date information on the risks associated with deviations from the approved 6,6 billion euro budget.

33.

According to the Host State Agreement signed with the Kingdom of Spain on 28 June 2007, permanent premises should have been made available to the Joint Undertaking by June 2010. At the time of the audit (April 2013), this had not occurred.

17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/49

1.

The SESAR Joint Undertaking, located in Brussels, was set up in February 2007 (1) in order to manage the activities of the SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) project.

2.

The SESAR project aims to modernise air traffic management (ATM) in Europe and is divided into three phases:

3.

The Joint Undertaking was designed as a public-private partnership. The founding members are the European Union represented by the Commission, and Eurocontrol, represented by its Agency. Following a call for expressions of interest, 15 public and private enterprises from the air navigation industry became members of the Joint Undertaking. They include air navigation service providers, representatives of the ground and aerospace manufacturing industry, aircraft manufacturers, airport authorities and airborne equipment manufacturers.

4.

The budget for the development phase of the SESAR project is 2,1 billion euro, to be provided in equal parts by the EU, Eurocontrol and the participating public and private partners. The EU contribution is funded from the Seventh Research Framework Programme and the Trans-European Networks – Transport programme. Around 90 % of the funding from Eurocontrol and the other stakeholders is in the form of in-kind contributions.

5.

The SESAR JU started to work autonomously on 10 August 2007.

6.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

7.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

8.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (4), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions

9.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (6) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

10.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

11.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the opinions set out below.

12.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

13.

In the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

14.

The following comments do not call the Court’s opinions into question.

15.

The final 2012 budget adopted by the Administrative Board reported commitment appropriations of 156,6 million euro and payment appropriations of 124,2 million euro. The utilisation rates for commitment and payment appropriations were 95,0 % and 86,3 % respectively.

16.

The provisional 2012 budget outturn account shows 12,4 million euro, with receipts comprising member contributions and other sources of revenue of 107,4 and 0,1 million euro respectively, plus the previous year’s budget surplus of 15,6 million euro. This total is netted against payments of 107,3 million euro. Year-end cash and cash equivalents amount to 15,7 million euro.

17.

At 31 December 2012, the SESAR Joint Undertaking development phase consisted of work by 16 members on programme activities involving more than 100 private and public entities and subcontractors. Of the 336 projects selected, 312 (92,8 %) were being implemented.

18.

Of the co-financing contributions paid to members by the European Union and Eurocontrol (595 million euro), 437,5 million euro had been committed and 233,8 million euro had been paid at 31 December 2012. It is anticipated that the remaining 158 million euro will be committed by 31 December 2013, and that 361,2 million euro will be paid by 31 December 2016.

19.

The accounting officer confirmed the validation of the underlying business processes in April 2013, reflecting the fact that no significant changes were made to the internal control system during the 2012 financial year.

20.

On the basis of the award of programme activities as formalised in the Multilateral Framework Agreement and subsequent amendments, net in-kind contributions over the life of SESAR are estimated, at 31 December 2012, to be 1 300 million euro. The Executive Director validated net in-kind contributions of 139,2 million euro during 2012.

21.

The Court notes that improvements are required in the following ex ante control areas:

22.

In accordance with the IAS/IAC coordinated strategic audit plan for the SESAR Joint Undertaking for 2012-2014, a programme/project audit and an IT risk assessment were carried out by the IAS. The SESAR IAC examined three calls for tenders and audited the implementation of four internal control standards. It also provided follow-up to the IAC’s 2010 and 2011 reports, as well as other assurance services.

23.

The SESAR Joint Undertaking’s policies and practices on the protection, dissemination and transfer of research activities and intellectual property rights (IPR), and the related monitoring and reporting systems, are governed by Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 (7).

24.

Detailed rules are given in membership agreements (MA) and the Multilateral Framework Agreement (MFA) between the SESAR Joint Undertaking and its members. In particular, Article 15 of the MFA states that the Administrative Board must further define how the rules on IPR are to be implemented.

25.

The IPR provisions of these three documents are largely based on the rules set out in the FP7 and TEN-T, account being taken of the particular characteristics of the SESAR Joint Undertaking as a public-private partnership.

26.

Implementation of these provisions is monitored by the SESAR Joint Undertaking at different stages of the funded projects, and reports are issued to the Administrative Board. In June 2013, the Joint Undertaking reported on IPR monitoring by providing the Administrative Board with a report devoted exclusively to the Joint Undertaking’s monitoring of the IPR provisions to date.

17.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/57

1.

The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH Joint Undertaking), located in Brussels, was set up in May 2008 (1) for the period up to 31 December 2017.

2.

The objectives of the FCH Joint Undertaking include supporting research, technological development and demonstration activities in the Member States and countries associated with the Seventh Framework Programme (2) through coordination with industry and research organisations, with a focus on developing market applications and hence facilitating additional industrial efforts towards the rapid deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies (3).

3.

The founding members of the Joint Undertaking are the European Union, represented by the Commission, and the European Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative Industry Grouping. The Research Grouping N.ERGHY became a member in July 2008.

4.

The maximum EU contribution to the FCH Joint Undertaking, to cover running costs and research activities, is 470 million euro from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme, of which the proportion earmarked for running costs must not exceed 20 million euro. The Industry Grouping is expected to contribute 50 % of the running costs and should contribute to the funding of operational activities through in-kind (4) contributions at least equal to the EU financial contribution.

5.

The Joint Undertaking was granted its financial autonomy on 15 November 2010.

6.

The audit approach taken by the Court comprises analytical audit procedures, testing of transactions at the level of the Joint Undertaking and an assessment of key controls of the supervisory and control systems. This is supplemented by evidence provided by the work of other auditors (where relevant) and an analysis of management representations.

7.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court has audited:

8.

In accordance with Articles 33 and 43 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (7), the management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

9.

The Court’s responsibility is, on the basis of its audit, to provide the European Parliament and the Council (9) with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court conducts its audit in accordance with the IFAC International Standards on Auditing and Codes of Ethics and the INTOSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. These standards require the Court to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking are free from material misstatement and the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

10.

The audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, which is based on an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts and material non-compliance by the underlying transactions with the requirements in the legal framework of the European Union, whether due to fraud or error. In assessing these risks, the auditor considers any internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the accounts, as well as the supervisory and control systems that are implemented to ensure the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, and designs audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The audit also entails evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies, the reasonableness of accounting estimates and the overall presentation of the accounts.

11.

The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its statement of assurance.

12.

In the Court’s opinion, the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

13.

In the Court’s opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

14.

The following comments do not call the Court’s opinions into question.

15.

The final 2012 budget adopted by the Governing Board reported commitment appropriations of 83,3 million euro and payment appropriations of 56,9 million euro. The utilisation rates for commitment and payment appropriations were 99,4 % and 83,1 % respectively.

16.

The provisional 2012 budget outturn account reported a total budget outturn of 8,2 million euro, with receipts comprising member contributions and other sources of revenue of 56,3 and 2,0 million euro respectively, plus the previous year’s budget outturn of 7,5 million euro, netted against payments of 55,2 million euro and carryovers of 2,4 million euro. Year-end cash and cash equivalents amount to 12,3 million euro.

17.

At 31 December 2012, the FCH Joint Undertaking programme consisted of 103 grant agreements resulting from four annual calls (2008-2011), with a further 28 grant agreements anticipated from the recently completed 2012 call.

18.

The calls for proposals organised in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 resulted in grant agreements totalling 295 million euro, and in 2012 a fifth call for proposals was launched for 78 million euro. These amounts represent 67 % and 18 % respectively of the maximum EU contribution to the Joint Undertaking for research activities. In January 2013, a sixth call was launched for the remaining amount (68,5 million euro).

19.

In accordance with the IAS/IAC coordinated strategic audit plan for the FCH Joint Undertaking for 2011-2013, the FCH JU internal audit capability carried out an audit on ex ante controls for eligibility of declared costs and related payments (10) and performed various consultancy services, including preparation and participation in the communication campaigns of FCH JU on financial control and audit matters.

20.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) establishes a monitoring and reporting system covering the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results.

21.

In the grant agreements signed with members and other beneficiaries, the Joint Undertaking has included specific provisions governing intellectual property rights and the dissemination of research activities. Implementation of these provisions is monitored by the Joint Undertaking at different stages of the funded projects.

22.

Now that the first projects have been completed, the FCH Joint Undertaking’s monitoring of the implementation of the plan for the use and dissemination of foreground could be improved, either through the information system set up by the Commission in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) to allow for the entire FP7 to be monitored in an efficient and coherent manner, or through an equivalent tool.

23.

In 2012 the business continuity plan and disaster recovery plan were finalised.