—

organising and coordinating the activities of the development phase of the SESAR project, in accordance with the ATM Master Plan, resulting from the definition phase of the project managed by Eurocontrol, by combining and managing under a single structure public and private sector funding,

—

ensuring the necessary funding for the activities of the development phase of the SESAR project in accordance with the ATM Master Plan,

—

ensuring the involvement of the stakeholders of the air traffic management sector in Europe, in particular: air navigation service providers, airspace users, professional staff associations, airports, and manufacturing industry; as well as the relevant scientific institutions or the relevant scientific community,

—

organising the technical work of research and development, validation and study, to be carried out under its authority while avoiding fragmentation of such activities,

—

ensuring the supervision of activities related to the development of common products duly identified in the ATM Master Plan and if necessary, to organise specific invitations to tender.

(a)

adopting the ATM Master Plan endorsed by the Council as referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation and approving any proposal to modify it;

(b)

giving guidelines and taking the decisions necessary for the implementation of the development phase of the Sesar project and exercising overall control over its implementation;

(c)

approving the Joint Undertaking’s work programme and annual work programmes referred to in Article 16(1) as well as the annual budget, including the staff establishment plan;

(d)

authorising negotiations and deciding on the accession of new members and on the relating agreements as referred to in Article 1(3);

(e)

supervising the execution of the agreements between members and the Joint Undertaking;

(f)

appointing and dismissing the Executive Director and approving the organisation chart and monitoring the Executive Director’s performance;

(g)

deciding on the amounts and procedures for the payment of members’ financial contributions and the assessment of contributions in kind;

(h)

adopting the financial rules of the Joint Undertaking;

(i)

approving the annual accounts and balance-sheet;

(j)

adopting the annual report on the progress of the development phase of the Sesar project and its financial situation referred to in Article 16(2);

(k)

deciding on proposals to the Commission on the extension and the dissolution of the Joint Undertaking;

(l)

establishing procedures for granting rights of access to tangible and intangible assets which are the property of the Joint Undertaking and the transfer of such assets;

(m)

laying down the rules and procedures for awarding the contracts necessary to implement the ATM Master Plan, including specific procedures for conflicts of interest;

(n)

deciding on proposals to the Commission to amend the Statutes in accordance with Article 24;

(o)

exercising such other powers and performing such other functions, including the establishment of subsidiary bodies, as may be necessary for the purposes of the development phase of the Sesar project;

(p)

adopting the arrangements for implementing Article 8.

‘(a)

employ, manage and supervise the staff of the Joint Undertaking, including the staff referred to in Article 8;’;

(b)

organise, manage and supervise the activities of the Joint Undertaking;

(c)

submit to the Administrative Board his proposals concerning the organisation chart;

(d)

draw up and regularly update the global and the annual work programme of the Joint Undertaking, including an estimate on programme costs, and submit them to the Administrative Board;

(e)

draw up, in accordance with the Financial Rules, the draft annual budget, including the staff establishment plan, and submit them to the Administrative Board;

(f)

ensure that the obligations of the Joint Undertaking, with regard to the contracts and agreements it concludes are met;

(g)

ensure that the activities of the Joint Undertaking are carried out with complete independence and without any conflicts of interest;

(h)

draw up the annual report on the progress of the Sesar project and its financial situation, and such other reports as may be requested by the Administrative Board, and submit them to the latter;

(i)

submit the annual accounts and balance-sheet to the Administrative Board;

(j)

submit to the Administrative Board any proposal involving changes in the design of the Sesar project.

—

23 temporary staff, recruited externally,

—

8 staff seconded by the SJU Members in accordance with Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 219/2007,

—

3 contractual staff,

—

1 SNEs.

—

feasibility of providing Air Traffic Service to Ängelholm airport from the Malmö ATCC R&D Remote Tower Centre;

—

feasibility of conducting remotely nominal and non nominal operations;

—

technical feasibility of capturing the ‘out of window’ traffic situation and operational environment from a single airport and to display this picture in the remote site.

—

the first SESAR Release content, Release 1, was consolidated through a first System Engineering review and endorsed by the Administrative Board as part of the AWP 2011. It consisted of 29 Validation Exercises addressing concept elements in 16 Operational Focus Areas;

—

in June 2011, the second System Engineering review took place to assess the progress of Release 1 towards the step V3 validation and, in particular, the validation plans and the platforms readiness. The review resulted in a number of corrective actions to mitigate risks related to the Release execution. The review concluded that the overall progress was adequate, while in terms of resource consumption and delivery alignment some weaknesses were noted. In particular, the level of maturity of the projects in following the EOCVM methodology, though improving compared to 2010, was still not sufficient;

—

Release 1 has started to deliver tangible results and marks a turning point in the development of the new ATM system;

—

at the end of 2011, 26 validation activities were conducted meaning that 90 % of Release 1 is achieved and 3 exercises are postponed to 2012;

—

282 Projects are in execution phase, representing more than 90 % of the total Programme but the progression of the Programme is not evenly distributed. As a matter of fact, deriving the top level concept into operational requirements is slower than expected and this impacts the critical path of several technical projects. A number of mitigation actions had to be put in place and are being monitored at the level of the Programme Control Group. SWIM is another area of concern where a dedicated action plan was elaborated to overcome the issues identified in the course of 2011.

—

In terms of resource consumptions (FTE), the first estimates at the end of 2011 provided by the Members indicate an overall under consumption in the order of 20 %. Nevertheless, it should be noted that for many Projects the planned distribution of resources during the execution phase is under revision and not yet reflected in the baseline used to measure the Programme progression. Following the IBAFO I and II reallocation adopted by the Administrative Board on 15 December 2011, it can be concluded that there is an under consumption of resources in the early stages of the Programme which appears to be compensated by a higher level of resources until the Programme end.

—

A similar but less evident trend – maturity and resources – seems to appear in terms of deliverables, as in some areas the SJU noted a slower provisions of deliverables in line with the under consumption of the resources. In order to address the situation in the short term, different measures have been taken, inter alia, a request to the Programme Committee members to perform further verifications at partners level, an analysis of the major reasons behind the under consumption, the IBAFO I and II reallocation, the termination of some Projects, etc. All the measures are monitored at risk management level and consolidated at the SJU level. In addition, work is conducted with the Members to better identify key root causes. Some of them can already be mentioned, such as the organisation of the work in some Projects, some de-synchronized contributions across the Programme, the lack of clear identification of the deliverables and of more specific quality criteria.