The European Parliament,

-  having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2000(1) containing the comments which form an integral part of the decision giving discharge to the Commission for the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1998 financial year,

-  having regard to the Commission report (COM(2000) 558 - C5-0560/2000 ),

-  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty,

-  having regard to Article 89(8) of the Financial Regulation,

-  having regard to Annex V(6) to its Rules of Procedure,

-  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0112/2001 ),

A.  whereas the decision on the 1998 discharge was postponed with the European Parliament resolution on 13 April 2000(2) and was not taken until 6 July 2000(3) ,

B.  whereas Parliament during the 1998 discharge procedure was unable to verify whether:

C.  whereas, in spite of the postponement of discharge, it was not possible to obtain a full picture of the events in the 'Fléchard case', and whereas the Committee on Budgetary Control has therefore decided to conclude both examination of the case and the question of possible consequences, and further examination of general questions in connection with the case, as part of the discharge procedure for 1999,

D.  whereas for 1998, and thus for the fifth consecutive time, the Court of Auditors had declined to provide an assurance that the transactions underlying the payments for the financial year had been legal and regular, taken as a whole, and that the funding directly managed by the Commission had been no less affected by the problems than the expenditure indirectly effected under Member State management,

Statement of assurance

1.  Welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Commission to date to reform its management systems in order, inter alia, to achieve more efficient financial management of Community funding; with a view to future discharge procedures, takes note of the Court of Auditors' assessment that a medium-term improvement in statement of assurance results is bound up with the future success of this reform project as a whole;

2.  Reaffirms its call on the Commission, made in paragraph 5 of its resolution of 6 July 2000, to arrive at a positive statement of assurance (DAS) for the financial year 2003 at the latest;

3.  Regrets that the Commission, although it has presented an action plan to improve financial management, has neither expressly committed itself to that objective nor formulated any verifiable intermediate objectives towards that goal; calls therefore on the Commission to submit a phased plan before 1 October 2001 on realising that objective;

4.  Informs the Commission that such a non-committal announcement conflicts with its own reform strategy, under which measurable and verifiable performance and achievements are to be expected of Commission officials and servants to a much greater extent than previously;

Common agricultural policy

5.  Notes that the Commission, in submitting its proposals recasting the Financial Regulation and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(4) , has taken a number of important steps towards complying with the calls made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 6 July 2000;

Structural operations

6.  Welcomes the adoption by the Commission of three regulations laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Fund(5) which seek to:

notes further in this connection that the objectives of these regulations are commensurate with Parliament's aims laid out in its resolution of 6 July 2000;

7.  Again reaffirms the call contained in paragraph 18 of its resolution of 6 July 2000 for more effective monitoring of the Structural Funds and for mid-term evaluation to be a genuine instrument for sound financial management;

8.  Takes note of the Commission consultation paper of 29 November 2000 (SEC(2000)2079 ) on reform of the disciplinary procedure; notes that the proposals it contains are inadequate because:

Officials" financial liability

9.  Believes that a credible and effective system of holding authorising officers to account must be put in place; considers that authorising officers' responsibility for financial irregularities should be assessed by a specialised financial irregularities committee, which would be empowered to refer cases to the disciplinary procedure under the Staff Regulations, in accordance with the recommendation made by the Committee of Independant Experts (second report, paragraph 4. 9. 24) and without prejudice to the competences of OLAF;

10.  Stresses that, even without prior Amendment of the Treaty, provision could be made for a procedure under which the Court of Auditors would be asked for an opinion prior to any decision on the financial liability of officials; calls on the Commission to submit appropriate proposals without delay;

Independent financial control

11.  Reaffirms paragraph 51 of its resolution of 6 July 2000, according to which financial control independence must be strengthened on a lasting basis and, hence, financial control staff must not be hierarchically subordinate to directors-general being monitored;

12.  Recalls recital F of its resolution on the Commisson White Paper on reforming the Commission (aspects concerning the Committee on Budgetary Control)(9) of 30 November 2000, in which it noted that the effectiveness of the reform proposed in the White Paper would be judged by, inter alia, the application of the relevant financial provisions being monitored and implemented with appropriate supervisory and sanction mechanisms;

13.  Reaffirms paragraphs 27 and 28 of the same resolution, in which it noted with satisfaction the Commission's decision to decentralise financial control within each Directorate-General, subject to a number of conditions being met; considers it essential that the Internal Audit Service be entrusted with the task of coordinating and supervising the internal audits carried out within Directorates-General and of ensuring and monitoring the professional independence of these internal audits;

PerryLux affair

14.  Calls upon the Commission to clarify why, in the proceedings before the Belgian courts in the "PerryLux affair", the Commission has not yet appeared as joint plaintiff and thus has no access to the files; calls on the Commission to appear without delay as joint plaintiff in Belgium, as it has already been doing for some time in the corresponding proceedings before the Luxembourg courts;

15.  Is concerned that despite the action evidently being taken on the basis of an OLAF report against the officials and servants who allegedly falsified reports for an advisor to a former Commissioner, after the event, in order to justify his activities as a visiting scientist, action is not being taken against those who prepared, authorised and signed the contracts with the advisor, although he manifestly lacked the high degree of scientific competence required for the award of such a contract;

16.  Welcomes the Commission's announcement(10) that an administrative inquiry has been initiated to clarify the circumstances which led to the award of contracts to another "special advisor", who is also reported to have played a key role in the Elf/Leuna affair, to the former Commissioner; regrets that this inquiry is only taking place now, though UCLAF/OLAF was informed as long ago as December 1998, on the basis of a witness statement, about the possible existence of a second "special adviser";

17.  Reminds the Commission of its undertaking to reopen disciplinary proceedings if new facts come to light;

18.  Calls on the Commission to apply the provisions of Article 213 of the EC Treaty rigorously and invoke the European Court of Justice if OLAF investigations currently in progress were to confirm that Members of the previous Commission breached the obligations of their office;

Deficiencies in respect of the handling of nuclear material

19.  Notes that the outcome of the administrative inquiry into deficiencies in the handling of nuclear material at the Joint Research Centre(11) , undertaken by way of follow-up to paragraph 1(j) of its resolution of 13 April 2000, was that no irregularities at all could be established; regrets that the Commission has hitherto not acted on the request to forward the inquiry report; notes that, for this reason, it is not possible to check the accuracy or otherwise of accusations that the inquiry was not conducted with the requisite objectivity;

Provision of information to Parliament

20.  Regrets that, even after the conclusion of the framework agreement, the Commission does not forward confidential information in a way that would allow Parliament to meet in full its verification obligations under the discharge procedure and that, instead, the provisions of the framework agreement are being used to drive a wedge between MEPs by circulating certain information on a targeted basis to selected office-holders only;

21.  Reaffirms its call in paragraph 25 of its resolution of 16 January 2001 on the follow-up to the 1997 discharge(12) , that Parliament needs at least as much access to confidential documents and information as the European Court of Auditors;

o
o   o

22.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the Court of Auditors.

(1) Texts Adopted, Item 5. (2) OJ C 40 of 7.2.2001, p. 381. (3) Texts Adopted, Item 5. (4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103. (5) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1. (6) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 39. (7) OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 13. (8) OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 21. (9) Texts Adopted, Item 15. (10) Mr Kinnock's reply of 21 February 2001 to Written Question E-4073/00. (11) Mr Busquin's reply of 21 February 2001 to Written Question E-4072/00. (12) Texts Adopted, Item 6.