In an Opinion published on Wednesday 31 October, the European Court of Auditors expresses concern about the legal uncertainty brought in by the simplification measures set out by the European Commission in its proposed Common Provisions Regulation for after 2020, presented in May 2018 (see EUROPE 12029).
First and foremost, the auditors note that the proposal was not the subject of a prior impact assessment, unlike the proposal made for the period 2014-2020. There are a number of blind spots when it comes to the impact assessments conducted by the Commission on the seven funds covered by the regulation. These mainly concern the fixed rates in the context of simplified wordings, and proportionate arrangements.
On this basis, the auditors consider that the Commission’s proposals lack clarity and therefore fear that the potential advantages of simplification in terms of reduction of the administrative burden and savings would be undermined by the heightened risk of non-compliance with the rules and good financial management. The draftees of the Opinion therefore consider that the Commission’s proposals are lacking in clarity.
To take an example – due to extension of the simplified costs option, the Court deems that reimbursement will be more often out of sync with real costs, which could run counter to the optimisation of resources sought by the Commission. Furthermore, the Court criticises the fact that elimination of ex ante assessment for some programmes and major projects could be detrimental to the quality of the outcome.
On the matter of introducing two-stage programming (5 years + 2 years instead of 7 years from the outset), the auditors consider that this measure could potentially generate administrative unwieldiness and result in greater complexity rather than simplification for the use of the funds.
Generally speaking, the auditors regret the lack of coherence between the five objectives set out in the regulation, as they are not measurable and not backed by an EU strategy. They say the fixing of objectives should remain up to the discretion of the member states. Consequently, they consider that the proposal does not align funding with EU priorities and, worse still, that it is less results-oriented than during the period 2014-2020.
For the full Opinion (in English) see: https://bit.ly/2P4qNhf. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)