—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union for the financial year 2010,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States for the financial year 2010, together with the Agency’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 Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (3), and in particular Article 30 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 (A7-0133/2012),

A.

whereas the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts 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 Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders 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 overall budget of the Agency for the year 2010 was EUR 93 200 000, which is an increase of 4,95 % compared to the financial year 2009, whereas the initial contribution of the Union to the budget of the Agency for 2010 was EUR 83 000 000 compared to EUR 78 000 000 in 2009 (6), which represents an increase of 6,41 %,

1.

Recalls that the initial Union contribution to the Agency for 2010 amounted to EUR 83 000 000; notes however that EUR 2 550 000, coming from the recovery of surplus, was added to this which, as a result, makes a total Union contribution of EUR 85 550 000 for 2010;

2.

Establishes from the definitive adoption of the Union’s general budget for the financial year 2010 that under Title I (Staff expenditure) and Title II (Administration), the Union’s appropriations for 2010 amounted to EUR 23 633 000 in terms of commitments and EUR 19 000 000 in terms of payments; notes also that under Title III (Operational expenditure) it amounted to EUR 59 367 000 in terms of commitments and EUR 38 000 000 in terms of payments;

3.

Acknowledges from its General Report that in 2010 the Agency used 95 % of its available budget of commitment appropriations and that the differences between the titles were limited, with Title I at 99 %, Title II at 80 %, and Title III at 97 %;

4.

Establishes from the Final Accounts that the level of payments of the 2010 budget improved from 61 % in 2009 to 69 % in 2010; moreover notes from the Agency that the payment levels for the 2010 operational budget reached 79 % compared with 65 % in 2009;

5.

Is concerned that the Court of Auditors has reported carry-overs since 2006; notes in particular that for the year 2010 an amount of EUR 26 500 000, representing 28 % of the available budget, was carried forward to 2011 and that only EUR 12 000 000 of this amount was matched by accruals; calls on the Agency to submit information to the discharge authority at latest by 15 December 2012; takes note of the justifications given by the Agency, namely the need to ensure continuity in the Agency’s operational activities and to allocate funds for deployment in the first quarter of the following year; reiterates that the practice of carry-overs of appropriations should be strongly curtailed and should not hamper sound financial management practices; requests that the Agency follow the principle of annuality in the future;

6.

Points out once more that a high level of carry-overs and cancellations is indicative of the inability of the Agency to manage such a large increase in its budget; wonders whether it would not be more responsible for the budgetary authority to take greater care in the future when deciding on increases in the Agency’s budget in the light of the time needed to carry out new activities; calls on the Agency therefore to provide it with fuller details on the feasibility of future commitments;

7.

Is conscious that the permanent or long-time nature of the Agency’s joint operations makes it unavoidable that the execution of the corresponding commitments extends beyond the year-end; urges the Agency, nevertheless, to continue to decrease as much as possible the volume of appropriations carried forward by strengthening its monitoring of joint activities in order to adjust the grants as early as possible;

8.

Notes some action on the Agency’s revision of the so-called REM (running expenses of means) sheets in 2010 in order to improve the programming and monitoring;

9.

Acknowledges the Court of Auditors’ observations of weaknesses in relation to the Agency’s accounting system; notes in fact that the system has still to be validated by the Accounting Officer, as required by the Financial Regulation; notes nevertheless the Agency’s reply which states that it started a Business Process Mapping project for financial processes in the beginning of 2011 and that the validation was supposed to be completed during the second half of 2011; calls therefore on the Court of Auditors to be reassured on this point;

10.

Notes the Court of Auditors’ observations of weaknesses in the system for reconciling suppliers’ statements with the corresponding records at the Agency; takes note of the Agency’s reply that most of the public entities do not have centralised accounting systems and some of them do not implement accrual-based accounting, making the process of vendor balances’ reconciliation difficult; notes the Agency’s commitment to make contact with the national authorities to try to implement alternative procedures with a view to reconciling its balances with those of its suppliers; calls on the Agency to regularly inform the discharge authority of the progress made with the national authorities to solve the issue;

11.

Asks that the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2011, assesses in greater detail the operations’ budget expenditure in relation to the objectives pursued by the Agency and its achievements;

12.

Acknowledges from the Final Accounts that the Agency has two ongoing litigation cases related to tender procedures and that the applicants have claimed damages for a total amount of EUR 10 794 806; urges the Agency to regularly inform the discharge authority of developments in these two cases;

13.

Sees from the Financial Accounts that the Agency concluded 751 grant agreements or Specific Financing Decisions with its partners, the total amount in co-financed activities being EUR 53 000 000;

14.

Notes, in addition, that out of the 751 grants, the Agency has not processed the final payment for 270 grants and that for 92 of those grants the Agency has paid the pre-financing amount of EUR 5 100 000;

15.

Calls on the Agency to carry out ex post controls in form of on-the-spot visits;

16.

Notes, nevertheless, that the Agency undertook a revision of the REM sheets, which are the basis for budget estimations and reimbursement claims;

17.

Establishes from the General Report that 74 recruitment procedures were carried out in 2010; notes that the recruitment procedures for four new posts from 2010 were ongoing and were expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2011, and that the total staff at the Agency at the end of 2010 was 294 members from a total approved Establishment Plan figure of 298;

18.

Calls on the Agency to further develop coherence in the strategic and annual planning of its operations; notes, in fact, that the objectives of the Annual Work Programme (AWP) for 2010 are not clearly linked with those for 2010 in the Multi-Annual Plan 2010-2013; reminds the Agency that the absence of a clear link and consistency between the different planning documents might have a negative impact on the delivery of the strategic plan;

19.

Sees from its General Report that despite the fact that the Agency’s budget rose in 2010, the net allocated operational activities fell from EUR 48 200 000 to EUR 47 400 000 but the number of operational man hours rose by 27 % to 6 411;

20.

Welcomes the efforts of the Agency to improve its monitoring of the operations’ budget; acknowledges that the first Rapid Border Intervention Teams were deployed in November 2010 and that this resulted in significant changes to the Agency’s budget;

21.

Notes that discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency should continue to be based on its performance throughout the year.

22.

Acknowledges that in 2010 the Internal Audit Service (IAS) performed an audit on operational planning based on internal and external stakeholders’ input; notes in particular that the scope of this audit covered:

23.

Calls in this respect on the Agency to ensure that all objectives in the Multi-Annual Plan are appropriately and clearly translated into the AWP;

24.

Welcomes the fact that the Agency, nevertheless, addresses in its operational plans the risks for each specific operation; notes in addition with pleasure that the Agency uses the lessons learned during the implementation of its operations to improve the preparation of subsequent operational plans;

25.

Acknowledges that the IAS still needs to review the Agency’s implementation of seven ‘very important’ recommendations from the IAS’s previous audits; notes in particular that these recommendations concern:

26.

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

27.

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.