The national delegations did not give the green light on Thursday 21 November, during the working group at the EU Council, on the package of proposals put forward by the European Parliament on the Common Provisions Regulation for the Structural and Investment Funds. But they were ready to give more flexibility to the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU to move forward at the inter-institutional meeting scheduled for Wednesday 27 November.
At the inter-institutional meeting on 12 November, the European Parliament presented a "deal package" on the three blocks currently being negotiated (block 1 on the strategic approach and programming, block 2 on the conditions for eligibility and the performance framework, and block 5 on management and control). These proposals concern in particular horizontal principles, partnership agreements, enabling conditions, public procurement and the selection process, according to several documents consulted by EUROPE.
On partnership agreements (Articles 7 to 9), the European Parliament has proposed a solution halfway between the position of the European Commission (which does not want any exemptions for Member States) and that of the EU Council (which wants exemptions when the budget allocation between the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and the ESF+ is below €2.5 billion or when there are fewer than three programmes). Parliament thus suggests that exemptions from partnership agreements could be granted when there is only one operational programme. This specificity would only concern four Member States, we are told, including the Baltic States.
For Member States, the European Parliament's proposal would still need to be reworked, but would be an avenue to explore. There would thus be flexibility on the approach of parliamentarians for an exemption based on the number of operational programmes, but on the condition that it is correlated with a minimum threshold of budget envelopes. One thing is certain: there must be only one document, one procedure and one decision for the partnership agreement and the programmes. Nor would they be in favour of integrating the so-called DG Home funds into the partnership agreements.
Moreover, Member States were not particularly enthusiastic about the European Parliament's proposals on horizontal principles on respect for gender equality, fundamental rights or accessibility for people with disabilities, on the grounds that these principles duplicate enabling conditions. On the enabling conditions, in fact, the adjustments proposed by the European Parliament on partnerships and the European pillar of social rights also are at issue. France is very committed to it, however, and would like to take the issue to the highest political level, namely the European Council.
With regard to public procurement, the European Parliament has a similar position to that of the Commission, but for the Member States, the European Commission's proposal would go too far and beyond the scope of the Public Procurement Directive. There are still be points to discuss on the selection of operations or on the modalities related to major projects.
Some delegations would, in any case, like an agreement on 27 November. They would therefore be prepared to give more flexibility to the Finnish Presidency of the Council. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)