—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency’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 Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (3), and in particular Article 17 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 (A7-0105/2011),

A.

whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2009 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

B.

whereas on 5 May 2010 Parliament granted the Executive Director of the European Network and Information Security Agency discharge for implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2008 (5), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:

C.

whereas the budget of the Agency for the year 2009 was EUR 8 100 000, 3,5 % less than its budget for 2008,

1.

Is concerned that the Court of Auditors reported appropriations carried forward to the following year of 19 % of the total budget of the Agency; notes, in particular, that 41 % of operational appropriations were carried forward to 2010 mainly as a result of delays in two big projects; expresses concern that this situation indicates delays in the implementation of the Agency’s activities that are financed from the Title III and is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality; calls, therefore, on the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken by the Agency to redress this deficiency;

2.

Calls on the Agency to strengthen its internal controls in order to make sure that contracts and procurement procedures are correctly applied; notes, indeed, that the Court of Auditors reported that, in one case, services that were not provided for by the contract were requested and, in two other cases, errors (use of incorrect quality-price weightings and of the wrong value for the financial offer) were made during the awarding phase of the contracts;

3.

Urges, in particular, the Agency to:

calls, therefore, on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the progress and actions taken in this regard;

4.

Encourages, also, the Agency to develop, and then regularly to up-date, a comprehensive table outlining its financial circuits and the responsibilities of the relevant financial and operational actors;

5.

Calls on the Agency to avoid transfers made without obtaining the prior consent of its Governing Board, which are contrary to the budgetary principles of specification; notes, in fact, that the Court of Auditors reported one transfer between titles of EUR 24 000, made without informing the Management Board and without obtaining its prior consent;

6.

Notes with disappointment that there has been no progress since the previous year concerning the refund of EUR 45 000, which is the amount of VAT paid in advance by the Agency to the tax authorities of the host Member State; urges, therefore, the Agency to inform the discharge authority when this refund is made by the host Member State;

7.

Notes that deficiencies in staff selection procedures still remain and put at risk the transparency of these procedures; acknowledges, indeed, that the Court of Auditors reported that neither the thresholds that candidates were required to meet in order to be invited to interview nor those necessary in order for them to be put on the reserve list were fixed in advance by the selection boards; calls, therefore, on the Agency to redress this situation and inform the discharge authority on the actions taken;

8.

Welcomes that the Agency has an Internal Control Coordinator (ICC) in place, who oversees and monitors the implementation of internal control systems in the Agency; acknowledges that the Agency has successfully implemented ex-ante controls of its internal procedures; calls, nevertheless, on the Agency to put in place ex-post controls with the help of a professional supplier;

9.

Urges, nevertheless, the Agency to put in place an exhaustive physical inventory and ensure the correctness of the accounting records; stresses the importance of this recommendation and calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the tools put in place to redress this deficiency; notes in this respect that the Court of Auditors also reported that the inventory of fixed assets was managed using a spreadsheet, which did not guarantee the integrity of the data;

10.

Acknowledges that the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS) performed a Human Resources Management audit in 2008 and a follow-up Implementation of Internal Control Standards audit in 2007; stresses that the Agency informed the discharge authority of a new recommendation of the IAS arising after the follow-up engagement of 2009 which calls for a review of the Internal Control Standards adopted by the Management Board on 10 October 2007;

11.

Acknowledges also the statement from the Agency that, in 2009, the IAS performed another audit on procurement in order to strengthen the Agency’s performance in this respect; notes, in particular, that, out of the 18 IAS recommendations, 13 were accepted and five were refused by the Agency, which subsequently asked the IAS to merge the refused recommendations; notes, furthermore, that, out of these recommendations, eight were considered ‘very important’ and 10 ‘important’;

12.

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 (6) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.