REPORT on the nomination of Bettina Michelle Jakobsen as a Member of the Court of Auditors

13.10.2023 - (C9‑0332/2023 – 2023/0807(NLE))

Committee on Budgetary Control
Rapporteur: Victor Negrescu

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

on the nomination of Bettina Michelle Jakobsen as a Member of the Court of Auditors

(C9‑0332/2023 – 2023/0807(NLE))

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9‑0332/2023),

– having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0292/2023),

A. whereas, by letter of 8 September 2023, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Bettina Michelle Jakobsen as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate Bettina Michelle Jakobsen’s credentials, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; whereas in carrying out that evaluation, the committee received a curriculum vitae from Bettina Michelle Jakobsen, as well as the replies to the written questionnaire that she had been sent;

C. whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with Bettina Michelle Jakobsen on 12 October 2023, at which she made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Bettina Michelle Jakobsen as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

 

ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITÆ OF BETTINA MICHELLE JAKOBSEN

Education

Master of Public Governance (MPG), University of Copenhagen and Copenhagen Business School, 2012

KIOL - Course in public management, 2004/2005 Master’s Degree in Law, Copenhagen University, 1990

University entrance qualification - specialisation in modern languages, 1982

 

Employment

Danish Member of the European Court of Auditors during the period 1 September 2015 to 28 February 2024

Assistant Auditor General, the Danish National Audit Office, 2005 - 2015 Director, the Danish National Audit Office, 2002 - 2005

Auditor, the International Board of Auditors for NATO, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, 1997

-2002

Special advisor, the Danish National Audit Office, 1996 - 1997 Head of Section, the Danish National Audit Office, 1990 - 1996

 

Professional experience

Danish Member of the European Court of Auditors, 1 September 2015 to 28 February 2024

From September 2015 to May 2016, Member of Chamber I (Sustainable use of natural resources) and subsequently Member of Chamber Ill (the EU’s external behaviour, security and justice).

Since May 2018: Dean of Chamber Ill and Member of the Administrative Committee of the Court of Auditors.

From June 2016 to June 2020: Member of the Audit Quality Control Committee.

 

1

 

Responsible for the not yet published/ongoing audits on:

1. The Spotlight Initiative: A joint EU-UN Initiative to fight violence against women and girls worldwide (publication of special report planned for 11 September 2023)

2. Audit on the Facility for Refugees in Turkey

 

Responsible member for the following published special reports:

3. Special report n° 27/2022: EU support to cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries

4. Special report n° 05/2022: Cybersecurity of EU institutions, bodies and agencies: Level of preparedness overall not commensurate with the threats

5. Special Report n° 19/2021: Europol support to fight migrant smuggling: a valued partner, but insufficient use of data sources and result measurement

6. Special report n° 20/2019: EU information systems supporting border control - a strong tool, but more focus needed on timely and complete data

7. Special report n° 32/2018: European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa: Flexible but lacking focus

8. Special report n° 27/2018: The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money

9. Special report n°14/2018: The EU Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Centres of Excellence: more progress needed

10. Special report n° 15/2018: Strengthening the capacity of the internal security forces in Niger and Mali: only limited and slow progress

11. Special report n° 07/2018: EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey: Only limited results so far

12. Special report n° 11/2017: The Bekou EU trust fund for the Central African Republic: a hopeful beginning

13. Special report n° 09/2017: EU support to fight human trafficking in South/South-East Asia

14. Special report n° 34/2016: Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain

15. Special report n° 30/2016: The effectiveness of EU support to priority sectors in Honduras

16. Special report n° 18/2016: The EU system for the certification of sustainable biofuels

17. Special report n° 06/2016: Eradication, control and monitoring programmes to contain animal diseases

 

Assistant Auditor General, the Danish National Audit Office, 2005 - 2015

Financial, compliance and performance audits on various Danish ministries, municipalities and regions. Management of directors and approximately 50 auditors and members of staff.

Responsible for drawing up reports to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament on the auditing of the State accounts.

 

Director, the Danish National Audit Office, 2002 - 2005

Responsible for financial and compliance audits of four ministries. Management of 17 auditors and members of staff.

 

Auditor, the International Board of Auditors for NATO, 1997 - 2002

First Danish national to fill such a position in 27 years and the first woman to work as an auditor at NATO. The work included the financial, compliance, performance and infrastructure audits of various NATO organisations and projects

 

Head of Section and special advisor, the Danish National Audit Office, 1990 - 1997

Financial, compliance and performance audits of various ministries and Nordic Council Institutions.

 

Other international experience

2011 - 2015: Member of the Audit Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in Luxembourg

2014 - 2015: Member of the Audit Board at the European Investment Fund (EIF) in Luxembourg

2012 - 2015: Chair of the Audit Committee at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg

2007 - 2015: Vice-Chair and Chair of INTOSAl’s Professional Standards Committee (PSC), which draws up public auditing standards applicable to national audit offices throughout the world

 

ANNEX 2: ANSWERS BY BETTINA MICHELLE JAKOBSEN TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Performance of duties: lessons learnt and future commitments

1. What are your main achievements as a member of the ECA? What were the biggest setbacks?

During the past eight years as a Member of the ECA, I have contributed to the Court’s work in several different areas and roles, e.g.:

• As the Dean of Chamber III (elected in May 2018 and re-elected in 2020 and 2022) I allocate and supervise the work of the Chamber, in close cooperation with the Chamber Director and my colleagues.

• I am an active Member of the ECA’s Administrative Committee. In this capacity I have also participated in numerous recruitment procedures, where I have contributed to a significant increase in the number of female managers at the ECA.

• I have served two terms as a Member of the ECA’s Audit Quality Control Committee, where I contributed to the continuous development of the ECA’s audit methodology and performed quality review on many special reports, across different audit chambers.

• I have been a constant advocate for having an efficient, ethical and transparent public-sector administration, with strong accountability and audit arrangements.

In terms of setbacks, I have not experienced many during my time at the ECA. But one regret would be that we have not, in the recent years, been able to accommodate the Parliament’s request for a specific assessment on the Global Europe MFF Heading.

As managers, we are frequently faced with the situation where there are several things we would like to do, but limited resources require us to make tough choices and to prioritise those activities that are likely to deliver the best value for money. We should, however, always be open to reassess strategic choices, as time and circumstances develop. In this regard, we are currently working towards providing a specific assessment on Global Europe, from 2024, by making use of savings linked to the phasing out of the European Development Funds (EDF).

2. What are the main lessons learnt in your field of competences / results achieved in your duties and audit tasks?

During my time as an ECA Member, I have been responsible for 16 published special reports:

21/2023: The Spotlight Initiative to end violence against women and girls: Ambitious but so far with limited impact

27/2022: EU support to cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries: Valuable support, but implementation started very late and problems with coordination need to be addressed

05/2022: Cybersecurity of EU institutions, bodies and agencies: Level of preparedness overall not commensurate with the threats

19/2021: Europol support to fight migrant smuggling: a valued partner, but insufficient use of data sources and result measurement

20/2019: EU information systems supporting border control: a strong tool, but more focus needed on timely and complete data

32/2018: European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa: Flexible but lacking focus

27/2018: The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money

14/2018: The EU Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Centres of Excellence: more progress needed

15/2018: Strengthening the capacity of the internal security forces in Niger and Mali: only limited and slow progress

07/2018: EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey: Only limited results so far

11/2017: The Bêkou EU trust fund for the Central African Republic: a hopeful beginning

09/2017: EU support to fight human trafficking in South/South-East Asia

34/2016: Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain

30/2016: The effectiveness of EU support to priority sectors in Honduras

18/2016: The EU system for the certification of sustainable biofuels

06/2016: Eradication, control and monitoring programmes to contain animal diseases.

As the list indicates, my audit tasks have included a wealth of interesting and diverse topics, each of them leading to new insights in the relevant policy areas.

I have had the privilege of working with many skilled colleagues and audit teams and have engaged with several different Commission DGs. I am direct in my communication with auditees and the Court’s College and aim to always be a constructive and honest interlocutor.

My time at the ECA has taught me the importance of vigilantly protecting our audit rights, and to report on any infringement against these.

I also strongly believe that our audit observations and conclusions are ours and should not be open to negotiation or external pressure. While audit recommendations are more likely to have an impact if they are accepted, I believe that there are situations where it is wiser that we as independent external auditors “agree to disagree” with our auditees. In such circumstances, the Parliament’s support is essential and has in several cases led to the implementation of recommendations that had not initially been accepted. I learned these lessons early on and stay true to these principles, also when reviewing and commenting on the reports of my colleagues.

3. What added value could you bring to the ECA on your second term and/or particularly in the area you would be responsible for? Would you like to change your area of responsibility? What motivates you?

My objectives for a new mandate would be to continue to use my over 30 years of audit experience to promote the sound financial management of all EU funds, and to carry out robust and meaningful audits that provide added value to EU citizens.

With my accumulated experience in external action, security and justice – in which the EU faces many challenges and threats - my wish would be to continue to work in this area, as I believe that there is still plenty for me to learn and contribute.

I am motivated by the opportunity to make a difference. To work with colleagues who engage actively in our discussions and contribute to knowledge sharing, team spirit and collegiality. It also motivates me and the team in my private office, that my Chamber colleagues have trusted and supported me as Dean of Chamber III since 2018.

4. How do you make sure to reach the planned audit objectives of an audit task? Have you ever been in the situation where you could not realize the audit task and for which reasons? How do you operate in such controversial situations?

I think that most auditors will have experienced a situation where an audit task could not be realised as planned, or where there was an imminent risk of this being the case.

In my experience, a successful audit relies on thorough preparation, early dialogue with the auditee on issues such as audit criteria, likely sources of evidence, the timeline of the audit and clearing of findings. While you can prepare for many eventualities, you nevertheless must remain open to meeting the unexpected; to be agile if there is a change in circumstances and be ready to modify your audit approach, if and when needed. The Covid-19 pandemic provided several lessons in this regard. Fortunately, I have so far been able, together with my audit teams at the ECA, to deliver on all our audit objectives.

However, I will admit that my latest audit, on the Spotlight Initiative to end violence against women and girls, was not an easy one. Problems we encountered included challenges to our audit rights, lack of cooperation, Covid-19 restrictions and an Ebola outbreak in a mission country. While the Commission services were generally very cooperative, the documentation flowed very slowly from the implementing partner causing several delays. At one stage, when our on-the-spot missions were imminent, our access was completely blocked and I was forced to put the missions on hold and consider, together with my audit team, whether it was possible to continue the audit within a reasonable time, or whether we would have to abandon it or reduce its scope.

While several attempts had been made to unblock the situation, I decided to make one last attempt by reaching out personally to the responsible Commissioner. I underlined that unless our access was immediately restored, we would have to stop the audit and report that it was impossible to conclude on the efficiency and effectiveness of a 500-million-euro initiative, as our audit rights were not being respected.

I am happy to say that the Commissioner acted both swiftly and effectively and we were able to resume our work and ultimately deliver on all our audit objectives.

5. If you were reconfirmed for a second mandate and hypothetically, if you were elected Dean of a Chamber in the ECA, how would you steer the work to define its priorities? Could you give us two or three examples of areas to focus on in the future?

Having already been given the opportunity to work as the Dean of Chamber III from 2018 until now, my approach to this role has been to work closely with our Director and to continue to invest in strong knowledge management structures within the Chamber.

When I was first elected as Dean, I organised a number of informal strategic discussion meetings between the Members of the Chamber during which we evaluated recent years’ audit coverage, the approach taken, and the lessons learned. We agreed on certain adjustments and identified areas/topics that we would like to prioritise more. As an example, we increased our focus on topics linked to migration and aimed for audits with slightly wider scopes, including thematical audits rather than (single) “country audits”. Since then, we have also increased our activities in the area of security and justice and most recently in defence.

I also introduced a process whereby the Chamber Members became involved earlier on in the programming process. I introduced meetings during which staff present the bottom-up generated audit ideas to the Members, making the process more dynamic and transparent to both staff and Members of the Chamber.

Looking from my current perspective as the Dean of Chamber III, and the wide audit portfolio we have, areas that I would like to explore more include topics such as EU cybersecurity, where large scale cyber-attacks have become a more frequent and complex threat. The impact of the EU’s support in areas such as human rights and rule of law are also topics that I consider important and where the Covid-19 pandemic may have contributed to a backsliding.

6. If you had to manage the selection of audit tasks in view of the preparation of the ECA annual working programme, on which basis would you make your choice among the list of priorities received from the Parliament and/or the CONT committee?

What would you do if a political priority does not correspond to the ECA risk assessment of the Union’s activities?

It is important to recall, that as a Treaty bound independent audit institution, the ECA has the prerogative as well as the responsibility to draw up its own annual work programme. In doing so, we consider a number of different factors, e.g. policy risks, materiality, timing/maturity, audit coverage, the likely impact of performing an audit and stakeholder interest. Some of these elements can point in different directions. Ultimately, prioritizing between the many different topics and areas that we might audit comes down to our professional judgement.

In this decision process, we carry out extensive consultations with different stakeholders, particularly with the European Parliament.

The number of external audit proposals we receive (from the CCC list alone) is, however, significantly higher than the number of audits we can carry out each year. Some proposals, while politically very relevant, may not be sufficiently mature or feasible, e.g. there may be a policy but little expenditure to date, or may require an assessment that goes beyond our audit mandate. In such cases, my approach would be to engage with the CCC/CONT in order to explore whether a meaningful audit scope can be established that is both feasible from an audit perspective and address the political priority expressed by the European Parliament.

Management of portfolio, working methods and deliverables

7. Producing high quality, robust and timely reports is key:

– How would you ensure that the data used in an audit are reliable and that the findings are not outdated?

Professional audit standards require auditors to corroborate evidence obtained from different sources and/or methods. Typically, we rely on a triangulation of audit evidence, e.g. by corroborating data from Commission reports with data obtained from other sources (such as Member States, implementing partners and beneficiaries) supplemented by interviews and on-the-spot inspection.

We take several steps to ensure that our findings are not outdated by the time we report them. One important prerequisite for a relevant report, with pertinent recommendations, is that the audit takes place at the right time. If we are too early, there is typically little expenditure and only limited performance data available. On the other hand, if we wait until programme implementation has been completed, we may have more data, but our findings are more likely to seem outdated by the time our report is published.

Insufficient data quality and/or availability are unfortunately fairly typical findings in our audit reports. In such cases, I believe that it is our job, as auditors, to report on the data limitations or unreliability we have found, to determine the causes and issue recommendations for the future.

– How would you improve the quality and pertinence of the recommendations?

Over the years, the ECA has invested time and effort into improving our audit recommendations. We have reduced their number to focus more on those elements that are likely to add the most value. We discuss potential recommendations with our auditees at an early stage, often starting with a longer list of potential recommendations, testing each one for their relevance, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. We also assess our ability to follow them up, i.e. in three years’ time, what do we expect to find?

I think that we have come a long way in terms of improving the quality and pertinence of our audit recommendations. It can, however, be challenging to determine the cost-effectiveness of them. So, on that aspect, I think that we can continue to build our knowledge and experience, just as I would like to see more recommendations that identify specific areas/ways of reducing administrative costs. Furthermore, we are still in what I would call a “learning by doing phase” in terms of identifying ways to optimise the use of “performance-based instruments”.

8. The aim of the ECA’s reform is to establish a stronger accountability relationship between the audit team and the rapporteur member:

– Given your experience, do you think that the role of a member is to be more involved in the audit work?

The ECA Members have different backgrounds, skills and competences. The same goes for the staff in our private offices and indeed ECA auditors. Audit tasks can be more or less complex and the auditees more or less sensitive. At the same time, audit teams come in different sizes, levels of experience and capabilities. These elements affect the level of support and involvement they need from us. A one size fits all approach, in terms of Members’ involvement in their audit tasks, would, in my opinion, not be optimal.

I do not think that Members should micromanage their audit teams. In my experience, people tend to grow when you allow them to take responsibility and the space to get on with their tasks. Nevertheless, I do believe that Members and especially their private offices need to have a certain minimum level of involvement in the audits for which they are responsible. This should at least include their active participation in discussions with the audit team at the planning stage, updates, and discussions at key stages during the audit execution, participation in drawing conclusions meetings and providing a clear mandate for the adversarial procedure.

– Would you change the way you work with an audit team? If yes, how?

I believe that my current approach towards working with my audit teams and the experience and participation of my private office has served me well and I see no particular reason for changing this approach. But, as I noted above, my approach is based on a certain level of flexibility, which takes account of the particularities of the individual audit task and the composition of the audit team. Typically, I clarify at the start of a new task what my expectations are in terms of involvement (of myself as well as my private office), discuss whether the head of task has any particular preferences or needs, agree on lines and frequency of communication etc.

9. What would be your suggestions to further improve, modernise the ECA functioning, programming and work (audit cycle)? After your first mandate, could you give us a positive aspect of the ECA working and a negative one?

I believe an area that would benefit from further improvement and streamlining is our programming procedures. While some actions have been taken in recent years to make our work programme more flexible, including steps towards making it multiannual, there is still some way to go. The current programming process is still lengthy, resource intensive and to some extend bound by traditional “silos” in terms of where we deploy our audit resources.

We recognise the need to further enhance our use of data and IT tools in our audit work. Similarly, I also see the need to increase our internal capacity and skills in the area of graphic design, as high-quality illustrations can be a very effective communication tool, when presenting our audit observations.

A positive aspect of the ECA’s organisation is that it is based on collegiality. As Members, we all have an equal say and the many different competences and perspectives we bring to the table help to enrich our debates and make the ECA’s College more than “the sum of its Members”.

A negative aspect, not unusual to an institution of our size and chamber structure, is the risk of developing a “silo mentality”. While the ECA reform, in 2016, aimed at making us a more agile task-based organisation, allowing a quicker response to changing environments and a more flexible use of resources, this aim has been very difficult to achieve in practice.

10. Under the Treaty, the Court is required to assist Parliament in exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget in order to enhance both the public oversight of the general spending and its value for money:

– With the experience of your first term, how could the cooperation between the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) on auditing the EU budget be further improved?

A continuous open and constructive dialogue between the ECA and the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) is essential to ensure that our audit reports meet your needs in the discharge procedure.

For our reports to have a maximum impact, they must be perceived as both relevant and timely. When the European Parliament discusses our reports during hearings, when working documents are produced, and support is given to our conclusions and recommendations, it provides invaluable help in optimising the impact of our reports.

I have been fortunate enough to present a high number of special reports to the CONT, as well as to other committees of the European Parliament. I hope to continue to do so and that you will discuss and bring public attention to as many reports as possible.

– Similarly, how to strengthen relations between ECA and national audit institutions?

Article 287(3) TFEU requires the ECA to cooperate with the national audit bodies in a spirit of trust, while each maintaining their independence.

In my experience, the Contact Committee of the European Supreme Audit Institutions is a good forum for such cooperation. Regular meetings to discuss topics of mutual interest, creates ties and contacts that can be drawn upon when there is a need to build knowledge on new topics and areas, e.g. the audit of the Resilience and Recovery Facility, where both the ECA and the national audit bodies play an important role. Presenting the ECA’s audit reports, and especially the annual reports, in the national audit institutions in our Member States is also a good opportunity to maintain and strengthen the relations between our institutions.

Another area for cooperation with national audit bodies, is in the setting of professional public audit standards, where the ECA has been quite active. Other opportunities are the participation in peer reviews of other Supreme Audit Institutions.

11. How will you support the Parliament in the achievement of the shortening of the discharge procedure? What actions can be undertaken from your side?

During the time I have been a Member of the ECA, the publication of our annual report has been advanced by approximately one month.

I will continue to push for the streamlining of processes, to achieve synergies and to identify best practices across the audit of different policy domains. However, in this matter we are also very much in the hands of our auditees, who according to the financial regulation have been granted certain deadlines, the shortening of which are outside our control.

In Chamber III we regularly suffer delays in the completion of our audit work due to lack of timely cooperation from international organisations, tasked with implementing EU funds. In my role as Dean and Member of Chamber III, I have encouraged and supported the position of “naming and shaming” such organisations in the relevant chapters of the annual report, in order to encourage them to cooperate in a timelier manner in the future.

Independence and integrity

12. What guarantees of independence are you able to give the European Parliament, and how would you make sure that any past, current or future activities you carry out could not cast doubt on the performance of your duties at the ECA?

The independence of the ECA Members is a vital precondition for the institution’s ability to function and maintain the trust of its stakeholders and EU citizens.

To guarantee this independence, I will continue to fully adhere to the Code of Conduct for ECA Members. I have no political affiliations, business interests or external activities that could raise any doubt concerning my independence or performance as a Member of the ECA.

13. How would you deal with a major irregularity or even fraud in EU funds and/or corruption case involving persons in your Member State of origin? Were you in this situation during your current mandate?

As auditors we must maintain professional scepticism and professional judgement throughout the audit process, recognizing the possibility that irregularities, fraud or corruption can occur. According to the Treaty, the ECA is obliged to report on any cases of irregularity. We cooperate with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor (EPPO) and refer those cases, where we have a suspicion of fraud, to the relevant authority.

I have not during my time at the ECA been in a position where such a suspicion has involved persons in my own Member State. If such a situation were to occur, my approach would be no different than if it had been any other Member State or third country.

14. The existence of conflict of interests can trigger a reputation risk for the ECA. How would you manage any conflict of interest?

I would disclose to the ECA President any conflict of interest that might occur or could be seen to occur with the aim of recusing myself from any involvement in the relevant matter. I have so far not been in any such situation.

15. Are you involved in any legal proceedings? if so, what kind?

I am not involved in any legal proceedings.

16. What specific commitments are you prepared to make in terms of enhanced transparency, increased cooperation and effective follow-up to Parliament’s positions and requests for audits?

As a Member of the ECA, I have always been strongly committed to transparency and have supported the ECA’s increased efforts in this regard. Our cooperation with the European Parliament, and especially the CONT, is essential to ensure adequate accountability of EU funds.

I welcome all audit proposals put forward by the European Parliament, even if we are not always able to accommodate all of them. In those cases, we do our best to provide clear feedback as to why some ideas are not taken onboard. Based on my many years of public audit experience, I believe that audits that “follow the money”, i.e. the audit of actual expenditure, in most cases is the best way to offer added value to taxpayers and ensure that those tasked with governance are held accountable.

Other questions

17. Will you withdraw your candidacy to a renewal of mandate if Parliament’s opinion on your appointment as Member of the ECA is unfavourable?

I am very committed to my work at the ECA and believe that I can continue to make a positive contribution to the Institution. I adhere to the highest level of independence, professionalism and integrity, and trust that my work so far has demonstrated this. Nevertheless, should the Parliament be in doubt as to my suitability to continue as a Member of the ECA and express an unfavourable opinion on my reappointment, I would withdraw my candidacy.

18. Being appointed Member of the ECA requires full attention and dedication to the institution itself and to ensure trust for the Union among its citizens:

– What are your views on the best way to assume these professional duties?

During my eight years as a Member of the ECA, I have dedicated myself to the work of the Institution. I am a strong advocate of sound and transparent decision making, clear communication to both internal and external partners and of Members’ obligation to lead by example.

– What are your current personal arrangements in terms of number of days of presence in Luxembourg? Do you plan to change these arrangements?

I live and work in Luxembourg and plan to continue to do so.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted	12.10.2023
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	22 1 0
Members present for the final vote	Matteo Adinolfi, Gilles Boyer, Olivier Chastel, Caterina Chinnici, Carlos Coelho, Beatrice Covassi, Luke Ming Flanagan, Isabel García Muñoz, Monika Hohlmeier, Joachim Kuhs, Alin Mituța, Markus Pieper, Sándor Rónai, Angelika Winzig
Substitutes present for the final vote	Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Jeroen Lenaers, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Mikuláš Peksa, Elżbieta Rafalska
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Herbert Dorfmann, Andrzej Halicki, Alicia Homs Ginel, Marcos Ros Sempere