—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, together with the College’s replies (1),

—

having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 — C7-0052/2011),

—

having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and 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 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) (3), and in particular Article 16 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 the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

—

having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security,

—

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 (A7-0150/2011),

A.

whereas the College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the framework Financial Regulation for agencies,

B.

whereas the Court of Auditors in its reports on the annual accounts of the College for the financial years 2006 and 2007, qualified its opinion with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions on the grounds that the procurement procedures did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation,

C.

whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2008, added an emphasis of matter to its opinion on the reliability of the accounts, without expressly qualifying it, and qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

D.

whereas in its decision of 7 October 2010 (5) Parliament refused to grant the Director of the College discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2008,

E.

whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2009, again qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

F.

whereas the College’s budget for the year 2009 was EUR 8 800 000, compared to EUR 8 700 000 for the year 2008,

1.

Voices concern at the College’s persistent lack of compliance with the Financial Regulation with regard to public procurement rules; notes, in particular, that a significant amount of the total College’s budget contains irregularities which concern:

2.

Deplores the fact that in certain instances no investigations were ever carried out, such as in those cases where the procurement procedures were not properly followed and where the engagement contracts signed were illegal;

3.

Acknowledges from the College that a Procurement Officer has finally been appointed and a Procurement Manual, including templates and checklists, was adopted on 8 June 2010 by Decision No 002/2010 of the Director;

4.

Requests that the College provide the Parliament with a report on the application of the Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010-1 July 2011, before 31 October 2011;

5.

Voices concern at the fact that the Court of Auditors identified severe shortcomings in the administrative and financial rules governing expenditure on the organisation of courses and seminars, which accounts for a major proportion of the College’s operational expenditure; considers it unacceptable that the main irregularities are due to the fact that the revised College’s Financial Regulation has never entered into force and, as result, all engagement contracts signed were illegal; notes from the College that these contracts expired in 2010 and were not renewed;

6.

Deplores the fact that because the College’s revised Financial Regulation never entered into force, engagement contracts signed with some advisers and experts were illegal (the total amount involved being estimated at EUR 200 000, including EUR 34 800 for the financial year 2009);

7.

Notes that the College’s Financial Regulation which was submitted to the Commission for an opinion in 2009 contained two provisions which did not receive a favourable opinion of the Commission because they were not considered to comply with the revised framework Financial Regulation;

8.

Recommends that the College, in the interest of fostering transparency, provide direct access to its detailed budget, which should include a list of its contracts and of its procurement decisions, and be published on the College’s website, with the exception of those contracts for which publication might entail a security risk; believes that this recommendation does not contravene the principle of personal data protection;

9.

Voices concern at the fact that more than EUR 3 800 000 of the 2009 payment appropriations, equivalent to 43 % of the total budget, was carried forward to 2010; is also concerned that 46 % of the appropriations carried over from 2008 had to be cancelled; stresses that this situation indicates severe and recurrent weaknesses in the programming and the monitoring of the implementation of the budget and is at odds with the principle of annuality;

10.

Notes that even though there is new management at the College, mistakes were made in the past which are still unaccounted for; voices concern at the College’s shortcomings in the areas of programming and monitoring of the implementation of its 2009 budget;

11.

Notes that yet again for the budget year 2008 31 % of the College’s total budget had to be carried over and, in 2007, 41,5 % of the College’s total budget had to be carried over while more than 20 % (EUR 500 000) of the College’s appropriations carried over from 2006 were cancelled;

12.

Welcomes, nevertheless, the fact that since March 2010, weekly financial management meetings have been introduced at the College to improve budgetary implementation and control; notes that improvements are scheduled to be introduced in association with the College’s Multi-Annual Activity Plan; acknowledges the actions taken to address the problem in 2010; calls the College to constantly inform the discharge authority of the improvements and action taken;

13.

Regrets that the Court of Auditors reported again this year significant delays and errors in the preparation of the 2009 provisional accounts; acknowledges in particular that there was a backlog of unprocessed invoices totalling EUR 900 000 at the end of 2009; notes that this situation is due to an unsatisfactory distribution of financial responsibilities, weak internal control procedures and difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff qualified and experienced in financial and accounting matters; urges, therefore, the College to rapidly redress this situation and inform the discharge authority of the actions taken;

14.

Is concerned that the College, in its Financial Statements for 2009, quantified the total impact on accumulated reserves of its errors prior to 1 January 2008 as EUR 929 670,27 (10,56 % of its total budget for 2009) and the total impact on accumulated reserves of its errors from 2008 as EUR 284 718,77 (3,2 % of its total budget for 2009);

15.

Voices concern that the Court of Auditors reported several weaknesses with regard to staff selection procedures that put at risk the transparency of these procedures; stresses in particular that the documentation of the procedures was inadequate; finds unacceptable that:

16.

Is also concerned about practices which are not allowed under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (6) or are illegal; notes, in particular, cases where:

17.

Deplores the fact that a recruitment contract which was executed in the wrong manner is still operative; calls on the College to remedy this irregularity as a matter of priority;

18.

Wonders, nevertheless, how the College intends to address these recurrent human resource management issues, especially considering the fact that the location of the College’s Secretariat in Bramshill significantly impedes its capacity to attract and retain duly qualified people;

19.

Acknowledges, nevertheless, that in 2010 the College adopted by decision of Director No 004/2010 a Recruitment Guide bringing the procedures in line with the Staff Regulations; calls therefore on the College to inform the discharge authority on the level of implementation of this decision;

20.

Notes the fact that, following the repeated request from the Internal Audit Service (IAS), the Court of Auditors and the discharge authority, an ex-post check on appropriations used to finance private expenditure was finally carried out by an external company;

21.

Acknowledges, in particular, that the objective of the external evaluation was to review the actions taken by the College to address issues raised by the Court of Auditors during their audit of the College in 2007 and to produce a report setting out the total appropriations used to finance private expenditure and the amounts recovered to date; notes, in particular, that the external audit reported:

22.

Notes that the figures provided, where available, in report 10/0257/KA on the reimbursement of private expenditure are far below the aforementioned figures disclosed by the external audit report;

23.

Deplores the fact that due to the passage of time and weaknesses in the financial management, monitoring and reporting at the College at the time leading up to the 2007 audit, the external auditor was not able to confirm this quantification of the appropriations irregularly used; notes, therefore, that the external auditor considered it more important to place the focus of the audit on the recoveries made and the potential for further recoveries;

24.

Acknowledges that the external audit report concluded that there is no real possibility for further recovery; notes, in fact, that:

25.

Stresses the fact that, in its specific annual report for the year 2007, the Court of Auditors had already signalled that it was not feasible for the auditors to review all payments made during the year 2007 as it was not possible to quantify either the amount that was irregularly spent on private use or all the different types of private expenditure incurred;

26.

Underlines once again the responsibilities of the former Director for the above mentioned deficiencies and irregularities; refers, in this respect, to its resolution of 7 October 2010 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008 (7);

27.

Stresses in particular the following findings reported by the Czech Presidency on 18 May 2009:

28.

Notes that the responsibilities regarding the appropriations used to finance private expenditure have been well established; deplores consequently the fact that the College’s Governing Board did not respond properly to the former Director’s managerial failings, out of concern not to harm the College’s image; considers it unacceptable that the Governing Board decided not to take disciplinary action mainly because of the possibility of legal action by the former Director;

29.

Reiterates, therefore, its position that the Governing Board of the College must be held accountable and suggests that changes be made to prevent this situation from recurring in future; calls again for a reconsideration of the position of the Commission in the Governing Board by granting it the right to vote;

30.

Welcomes the College’s initiative of providing to the discharge authority the final assessment Report of the IAS on the implementation of the Multi-Annual Plan (MAP) 2010-2014 of the College; considers this a sign of transparency and a best practice to be followed by all other agencies;

31.

Acknowledges that the College, following the recommendation of the IAS, of the Court of Auditors and of the discharge authority, in the end, adopted by Decision No 010/2010 of the Director of 21 June 2010 a new procedure for the recording of exceptions; calls, now, on the College to inform the discharge authority on the level of implementation of that Decision;

32.

Notes that the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the College should be further based on its performance throughout the year;

33.

Notes that, upon the request of the discharge authority, the College’s Governing Board finally approved the MAP in May 2010; notes also the fact that by the end of September 2010, 19 of the 44 milestones had been completed whereas 18 milestones were on course with regard to the planned timetable and 7 milestones still await the initial start of implementation;

34.

Is concerned that in its Final Assessment Report on the implementation of the College’s MAP for 2010-2014, the IAS found a lack of clarity in the description of some items in the MAP and overlap between some of its milestones; stresses, therefore, that the progress reporting is not always accurate enough to allow a clear understanding of what the individual milestones imply in terms of concrete actions and it makes it difficult to assess the ultimate overall status of the related actions;

35.

Urges, therefore, the College:

and calls therefore on the College and its Governing Board to inform the discharge authority by 30 June 2011 about the actions and improvements taken with regard to all these concerns;

36.

Notes the reply of the College that, if after an internal investigation it could be concluded that personal accountability can be established, it would definitely take the necessary measures in accordance with the applicable regulations; asks the College to inform the discharge authority on the implementation of the internal investigation;

37.

Calls on the Court of Auditors to conduct a specific audit to examine the implementation of the Action Plan of the College;

38.

Recalls that the progress of the College in implementing the MAP is primarily linked to its capacity in recruiting and retaining qualified staff experienced in financial and accounting matters;

39.

Notes the opinion developed by DG Justice, Freedom and Security in its 2009 Annual Activity Report on the College’s structural problems; calls again into question the capability of the College to overcome the following problems:

40.

Notes that the College and Europol are two Union bodies evolving in similar fields and are performing complementary activities; believes that if these activities were brought together under a common agency, unnecessary additional costs would be avoided; recalls that the Union budget is based on a sound financial management requiring the spending to be relevant, effective, and efficient and unnecessary expenditures to be properly addressed;

41.

Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2011 (8) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.