Brussels, 25/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - In plenary in Brussels on Wednesday, the European Parliament will examine the Freddy Blak (Danish, GUE/NGL) which should end the discharge procedure for Budget 1999 (see EUROPE of 5 April 2001 for the first Blak Report). The rapporteur considers that the Commission's answers to the questions and comments made by Parliament when granting the discharge for 1999 are complete and satisfactory. The measures taken by the Commission demonstrate, according to the report, that in a general manner the two institutions agreed on the ways to pull off the ongoing reform process and improve financial management and control systems. The report does, however, place emphasis on certain subjects or issues for which the EP would like "more information or another form of monitoring".
Access to information: According to Mr. Blak, it is not up to the Commission (contrary to what the latter states) to be the last to decide if the information it hands Parliament in the context of the discharge procedure is sufficient to control the execution of the budget. The report stipulates that Parliament, as discharge authority, has to have access to the Commission's documents like the Court of Auditors, and welcomes the improvements made by the Commission in its procedures, especially the weekly transmission to Parliament of figures on the execution of the budget.
Declaration of assurance and error rates: the setting up by the Commission of a system of attestations in the general guidelines is well-received, even if the report calls for the EP to be informed of their annual error rates. The undertaking made by the Commission "of improving the DAS (Declaration of Assurance) as soon as possible" is regarded as "inadequate" and the report thus calls on it to "considerably reduce the error rates and ensure that it secures a positive DAS for the 2003 exercise at the latest".
Agriculture and fraud: regarding the clearance of accounts, the report welcomes the Commission's positive attitude on the extension of the recovery period from 24 to 36 months (this was an EP request) and the examination of the possibilities of applying increased financial corrections to Member States guilty of repeated weaknesses in the monitoring system. The report also turns to a few affairs of fraud: it also asks to be informed of the exact date and amount of the financial corrections applied in the issue of adulterated dairy products and takes note of the Commission's explanations on developments concerning linen. Regarding refunds to Denmark, the report welcomes the fact that the Danish Food and Fisheries Directorate should have set up an action plan to absorb the arrears of guarantees that it accumulated at an unacceptable level.
Structural Funds: Mr. Blak recalls that the Commission has initiated a procedure concerning the reduction, suspension and waiving of aid to the Netherlands and Spain.
Anti-fraud office (Olaf): the report takes note of the description of the situation by the Commission regarding the affairs "European Migrants Forum", "European Social Fund" and the "Berlyamont" (the building where work has been going on for years and that should again house part of the European Commission).
Commission: the report welcomes the adoption by the Commission of a communication defining the guidelines on the implementation of the principle of proportionality (see EUROPE of 23 November 2001). The report, moreover, calls on the Commission to undertake an "in-depth reform" of the invalidity pension system.
The report regrets that the Commission should have refused to undertake a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the different Directorates General and to hand the discharge authority, every six months, a synthesis of the main recommendations of the internal audit reports. Mr. Blak also considers that nothing has been done to review the disciplinary procedure. He does, however, praise the Commission for having created a system of information exchange between Member States (or "Black List") allowing for sub-contractors sentenced for certain infringements being disqualified from public procurement.