Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2016)605-1 - Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union amending a number of regulations

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2016)605-1 - Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union amending a number of regulations.
source COM(2016)605 EN
date 14-09-2016


1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 .

Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors.

A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision).

However, there is room for further simplification. This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area.

Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors.

Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments.

The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility.

The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas:

1. Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for 'contribution in kind' valuation; recognition of volunteer work; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII).

2. From multiple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit, assessment or authorisation meets the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial framework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126).

3. Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V).

4. More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X).

5. More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a 'flexibility cushion' for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget, a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 227), the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 205). Recent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks.

6. Focus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title XIII). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 239-245).

7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 68); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 108).

8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement: the proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (Аrticle 54).

In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).

• Consistency with existing provisions on the policy area

In designing simpler and more flexible EU financial rules the Commission has made sure that it does not weaken sound financial management which remains a key objective. Quite to the contrary, the present proposal also strengthens rules on tax avoidance to be respected by EU implementing partners and clarifies that the duty to avoid conflicts of interest fully applies to all modes of implementation of EU funds (including at the level of Member States). It also consolidates the systems in place to protect EU budget against fraud and financial irregularities (extending the authorising officer's competence to take action with regard to the Early Detection and Exclusion System in indirect implementation).The simplification of EU financial rules will also contribute to reduce the costs and time needed to implement EU funds as well as the number of errors. It should also increase the impact of the policies and their results on the ground.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

The proposal is based on Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for the part relating to the revision the Financial Regulation and on the sectoral legal basis for the legislative acts modified by the second part.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The adoption of EU general financial rules and of the modifications proposed to the sectoral legislative acts falls under the exclusive competence of the EU.

• Proportionality

This proposal focused on simplification and does not contain rules which would not be necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty. In particular, the modifications to the sectorial legislative acts proposed in its omnibus part are limited to those necessary to allow the simplifications proposed in the Financial Regulation to deploy their full effect on the ground.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Stakeholder consultations

A public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation was carried out in April/May 2016. A total of 111 contributions were received from a wide range of stakeholders.

The replies show overall support for the simplification (65%) and flexibility (79%) measures proposed. With respect to simplifying EU grant rules, stakeholders continue to prefer the reimbursement of actual costs but do not oppose simplified reimbursement through unit costs, lump sums or flat rates or reimbursement on the basis of pre-defined results as long as those are not compulsory. These concerns are reflected in the proposal. In particular, simplified reimbursement of costs will remain only an additional option to be used by the authorising officer with regards to the nature of the supported actions and recipients. Implementing partners of the EU (national development agencies, international organizations, EIB/EIF, NGOs) request the Commission to rely more on their rules and policies once positively assessed. They complain about multiple prior assessments of their systems or procedures or repeated audits of the same activities by the EU and other donors, when cross-reliance on such assessments and audits could be possible. They also criticize different reporting requirements among donors 10 .

An Awareness Raising Event took place on 6 April 2016 in Brussels to allow stakeholders to voice their concerns/suggestions about the Financial Regulation. Their comments made are in line with the replies to the public consultation.

The measures contained in this proposal address these concerns.

• Impact assessment

No impact assessment for this revision of the Financial Regulation has been carried out. The Financial Regulation as such has a limited economic, environmental or social impact (it provides the general rules for the implementation of the spending programmes, but the concrete economic or social impact incurs when making policy choices implementing the sectorial programmes). Changes proposed to the sectoral legislative acts are merely consequential to the simplifications proposed in the Financial Regulation

• Regulatory fitness and simplification

While the revision of the Financial Regulation and the corresponding changes to the sectoral legislative acts do not fall under the Regulatory Fitness Programme, they are in line with – and contribute significantly to – the Better Regulation agenda: indeed, this proposal reduces the overall number of general financial rules applicable to the EU budget by some 25% and regroups them in a single rule book which will replace both the Financial Regulation and its Rules of Application:

·Key provisions of the Rules of Application are moved into the Financial Regulation, while less important elements will be integrated if needed and on a case by case basis in Commission’s internal rules or in guidelines made public by the Commission.

·The detailed procurement rules applicable to EU institutions and bodies are consolidated in an annex of the revised Financial Regulation, which could be modified by delegated act.

·Provisions of Part Two of the Financial Regulation relating to special provisions applicable to the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, to Research, external action and to other specific EU funds are inserted in the relevant parts of the Financial Regulation unless they are no longer relevant.

The proposal to revise the Financial Regulation also stresses commonalities and reduces specificities to the minimum so as to make the rules easier to apply for the users: emphasis is put on common rules applicable to all methods of implementation (direct, indirect and shared) as well as for all legal instruments by regrouping them in dedicated chapters. Provisions on European offices, executive agencies, decentralised agencies and public-private partnership bodies currently spread over the Financial Regulation are pulled into the same chapter. Rules on EU trust funds, budget support and experts (including research experts) are regrouped under a new title “Other budget implementation instruments”.

The proposal also strongly focuses on achieving substantive simplification of the current EU financial rules. As mentioned in point 1 above, it contains numerous elements reducing the administrative burden for applicants and recipients of EU funds.

The proposal does not exempt micro-enterprises from its scope. Such enterprises can be beneficiaries of EU funds and must therefore be subject to the rules. However, in certain areas, it reduces the costs for businesses which are often SMEs (replacing in the area of financial instruments the publication of individual data of beneficiaries by aggregate statistics) and more generally the numerous simplification measures should benefit to all enterprises

• Fundamental rights

The proposal is in line with the protection of fundamental rights.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal does not have budgetary implications.

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Contents

1.

1. Simplification for recipients of EU funds


2.

1.1. Simplify grant use, lump sums and cost calculations


Many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to the content of grant applications, the value of contributions in kind, recognition of volunteers work, the conditions for award of grants without a call for proposals to Member States under specific conditions, the principle of no profit, the principles of non-cumulative award and the phasing out of grant decisions. Other measures demonstrate the move towards a simpler and leaner administration.

3.

1.1.1. General financial rules


The proposal promotes the use of simplified forms of grants, open to all EU funded programmes where the nature of the actions and underlying expenditure allow such approach (e.g. training and mobility actions, travel costs, etc.). This would alleviate the administrative burden, reinforce certainty on the reimbursed amount to beneficiaries and stimulate the up-take of simplified forms of grants and their combinations (Article 175).

Use of expert judgment: the implementation of simplified forms of grants has been hampered by the lack of data needed to establish a reasonable approximation of the actual costs. This is often due to the innovative nature of the actions concerned or to the fact that actions are implemented only in certain countries and no data are available for other countries. In order to bridge this gap, it is proposed to make use of expert judgement in complement of or as an alternative to the statistical or historical data, depending on the nature of the action (Article 175).

Simplifying the authorisation of lump sums, unit costs and flat rates: to replace the lengthy and burdensome process of authorisation (College decision for amounts higher 60.000 EUR per grant) by enabling the responsible authorising officer to adopt decisions authorising simplified forms. This level is more appropriate given the highly technical content (calculation methodologies, overviews of data, etc.) of the decision (Article 175).

Simplifying and clarifying the content of grant applications including the accompanying supporting documents: no obligation to provide information demonstrating the applicants' financial and operational capacity if those are not verified (e.g. for public bodies); aligning the obligation to provide an audit report with the applicable EU and national law in the area of accounting (Article 189).

Simplification of the principle of non–cumulative award: grants like scholarships to natural persons, direct support to refugees, unemployed and other persons in most need will be exempted from this rule since traditionally their value is quite low (Article 185).

Removing the no profit principle: the practical importance of the no-profit principle has diminished substantially: revenue-generating projects are in principle supported throughfinancial instruments. For projects that are in principle not revenue-generating, the no profit principle creates disincentives: beneficiaries are not encouraged to ensure that their projects become sustainable or profitable. This has in turn a negative impact on the economy.

Simplifying the determination of the value of contributions in kind: these contributions do not constitute eligible costs. Therefore, their exact value is irrelevant. However, they may continue to be accepted as part of the co-financing. Any value reasonably established by the authorising officer at the time of acceptance of the estimated budget can demonstrate that there are other sources of financing of the action, apart from the EU grant, and that the co-financing principle is complied with (Article 184).

Recognition of volunteer work: In order to facilitate the participation of small organisations in the implementation of the EU policies in an environment of limited availability of resources, it is necessary to recognise the value of the work provided by volunteers as eligible costs. As a result, such organisations may rely to a greater extent on volunteers' work for sake of providing co-financing to the action (Articles 175, 180 and 184 ).

Simplifying and harmonising the conditions for award of grants without a call for proposals: it is proposed to extend the possibility to award direct grants to entities mandated by the Member States to the cases of a de facto or de jure monopoly or where direct beneficiaries have been chosen for their technical competencies, high degree of specialisation or administrative powers. In addition, the authorising officer would be authorised to combine the evaluation report and the award decision in one document. This will alleviate the administrative burden and will speed up the award of direct grants (Article 188).

Simpler record-keeping: the record-keeping period shall be a uniform five years (three years if the funding is of an amount lower than or equal to € 60.000), also for indirect implementation (Article 128).

Notional approach for grants: where grants are expressed only as an absolute value (not as a percentage of eligible costs), the eligibility of costs shall be verified at the latest at the time of the payment of the balance (Article 180). For this verification, a simplified ("notional") approach can be used (Article 150). Phasing out of grant decisions: it is proposed to phase out grant agreement and use predominantly grant agreements, subject to a review in the progress made towards e-grants at the end of the current MFF (Article 277).

4.

1.1.2. Sectoral rules


The improvements for using simplified cost options in the Financial Regulation are complemented by changes proposed for sectorial legislation extending the use of simplified cost options in

·Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund,

·European Social Fund Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013,

·Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 on the Fund for European Aid for the most deprived.

5.

2. From multiple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonised reporting requirements


The aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when they meet the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. In order to avoid multiple layers of controls, the Commission shall promote the recognition of internationally accepted standards or international best practices in that area, as well as common reporting requirements among donors:

·Cross-reliance on ex-ante assessments and checks of recipients already conducted by other entities (donors) with regard to conditions equivalent to the EU ones (Article 122).

·Cross-reliance on audits conducted in accordance with internationally accepted standards is also encouraged always with a view of avoiding multi-audits of the same persons/entities for the same activities. This would allow the Commission to rely on independent audits conducted on the use of the EU funds by international partners (UN, World Bank etc.) or Member States (Article 123).

·Harmonisation of its reporting requirements with those of other donors: the Commission shall promote the adoption of common reporting requirements through the financial framework partnership agreements concluded with its main international partners (Article 126).

·Allowing the Commission to rely possible on the systems and procedures of the partners of the EU under indirect implementation if they have been positively assessed (Article 149) and impose remedies if certain rules/procedures are not sufficient to protect the EU financial interests; where the Commission requires the use of its own or specific procedures no assessment will be carried out. In all cases the level of supervision/control exercised should be adapted on the basis of the principle of proportionality.

·Enhancing Financial framework partnership agreements (Article 126): such agreements established with trusted partners for long term cooperation will in the future cover all the actions in direct and indirect implementation and reflect the extent to which the Commission may rely on the systems and procedures positively assessed as well as the application of a single set of rules for all legal instruments. Long term partnership agreements will offer a flexible framework for cross-reliance on assessments and audits where possible as well as for harmonising audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors.

6.

3. Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments


The proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU under indirect implementation to the maximum extent possible.

7.

3.1. General financial rules


·The application to an implementation partner of the Commission of only one set of rules instead of two would be allowed in certain cases – regardless of the nature of the action and of the role of the partner as a manager of funds or a 'do-er'. Where hybrid actions combine indirect and direct implementation and currently imply two sets of rules, accessory elements that are currently submitted to direct implementation rules (very often the case for technical assistance) would follow the rules of the main elements of the action (e.g. the running of a financial instrument with guarantees or else (Article 208(2)).

·In order to facilitate combinations between grants and financial instruments, a single set of rules (those of the financial instruments) shall apply to grants complementary to financial instruments if combined in a single action (Article 208(2));

·The period for record-keeping for grants and financial instruments shall be aligned to five years (three years for amounts up to € 60.000 Article 128).

8.

3.2. Sectoral rules


·Limiting state aid verifications to the state aid consistency check for the EU-level financial instruments foreseen under the Financial Regulation when ESI funds contribute to EU- level financial instruments (no double verification): Member States contributions to EU-level financial instruments which are made without any additional conditions as to the use of the contributions other than in relation to the geographic area for the use of the contribution shall not require another separate state aid verification as the financial instrument is already consistent with state aid rules based on the Financial regulation. This will be clarified through appropriate guidance.

·Extension of SME Initiative(SMEI), allowing for the use of the SME Initiative beyond 2016, making it possible for Member States to commit funding to the SMEI up to 2020.

·Extension and clarifications of CPR provisions on combinations between financial instruments and grants in order to facilitate their combined use.

·Introducing a new possibility to combine ESI Funds/EFSI and a new structure for combining ESI Funds with EIB and EIF: ESI Funds programmes should be able to contribute to financial instruments combined with EIB financing under EFSI.

9.

4. More effective use of financial instruments


10.

4.1. General financial rules


Experience with financial instruments and in particular input from key implementation partners (EIB/EIF) point at the following possibilities to improve further their management and effectiveness:

·All reflows (revenues + repayments) generated by a financial instrument should be used for the same instrument to pursue efficiency gains; full transparency is guaranteed through reporting (Article 202(2));

·EIB /EIF would retain their status as key EU partners in implementation but direct negotiations should be authorised between the Commission and a greater number of potential entities, to ensure a level-playing field amongst them (Article 149);

·Given the impossibility to impose the full respect of EU rules where the EU participates in a financial instrument as minority shareholder of a fund, it is proposed to allow a proportionate application of EU rules in such cases instead (Article 208(4));

·The publication of individual data of final recipients would be replaced with statistical data, aggregated per relevant criteria proposed for final beneficiaries receiving EU support of less than € 500.000 (policy area, type of support, type of beneficiary, geographical distribution (Article 36(5)).

·Final beneficiaries and intermediaries shall not be required to provide a declaration of honour confirming that they are not in one of the exclusion situations where the implementing partner has an exclusion policy considered equivalent to that of the EU (Article 131).

·Two new sections are proposed to regulate other instruments bearing a financial risk, such as budgetary guarantees and financial assistance to Member Stets or third countries (Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 2 of Title X).

·Rules to authorise, manage and control non-provisioned contingent liabilities have been introduced (Articles 203 to 206).

11.

4.2. Sectoral rules


To further optimise management and use of financial instruments in shared implementation, changes to the Common Provisions Regulation 1303/2013 (CPR) are proposed:

·Clarifying the possibility for Member State Management Authorities to directly award a contract, including technical assistance, to the EIB/EIF, other International Financial Institutions as well as National Promotional Banks.

·Treasury management: where the temporary investment of ESI Fund money paid into a Financial Instrument before the investments in final recipients generates negative interests, their payment from resources paid back when at least one cycle of investments has been carried out shall be authorised.

·Certain EAFRD measure specific rules shall be removed that have hindered the programming of financial instruments in Rural Development and their implementation by the fund managers, to increase the leverage effect of the EAFRD funding through a higher use of financial instruments.

12.

5. More flexible budget management


13.

5.1. General financial rules


The proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively:

·Allow for the establishment of EU trust funds also for emergency, post-emergency or thematic actions within the EU (and not only for third countries). Recent events in the European Union show the need for increased flexibility for funding within the EU. As the boundaries between external and internal policies are increasingly blurred, this would also provide a tool for replying to challenges crossing the borders (Article 227).

·Increase the 'negative reserve' from EUR 200 million to EUR 400 million and thus also follow up to a Council request to limit the number of Draft Amending Budgets linked to payments (Article 48).

·Create a flexibility cushion for external action via the carry-over of non-allocated funds for the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPAII) , the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) and the financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) to year N+1 in the limit of 10% of the initial appropriations of each instrument (Article 12).

·Foresee more flexibility for crisis and emergency situations and humanitarian aid in grants: Administrative procedures are simplified to enable quick and efficient response (e.g. retroactive eligibility before the submission of the application to be decided by the authorising officer responsible, Article 186).

·Use of imprest accounts in the Union Delegations would be allowed for payment of limited amounts by budgetary procedures. Non-statutory staff in the field of crisis management aid and humanitarian aid operations could administrate such accounts and sign legal commitments executed from them up to EUR 2 500 (Article 109).

·Increase flexibility for autonomous transfers by the Commission by enlarging the current scope, i.e. by also allowing transfers of operational expenditure between different titles if they are covered by the same basic act, including support chapters, and from the administrative support lines to the corresponding operational lines (Article 28).

·Simpler mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund EUSF via an autonomous transfer from the reserve to the budget line once the decision of mobilisation has been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Article 28).

·Simpler mobilisation of the European Globalisation Fund EGF via automatic approval of transfers from the reserve to the budget line upon adoption by the Budgetary Authority on the mobilisation of the Fund (Article 30).

·Clarify that amounts corresponding to commitment appropriations for the Emergency Aid Reserve and the EU Solidarity Fund EUSF are carried over automatically (Article 12).

·Remove the obligation to first use the appropriations authorised for the current financial year until they are exhausted before using appropriations carried over.

·Allow use of internal assigned revenue for another purpose than the one for which it is assigned in case there are no identified needs allowing such revenue to be used for the same purpose (Article 30(3)).

·Allow the institutions and bodies to accept corporate in kind sponsoring for specific events or activities (i.e. not receptions or other exclusively social events). For that provision to be implemented, each institution would first authorise the principle of acceptance of sponsoring in kind and set out specific guidelines covering notably ethical aspects (Article 24).

·Foresee that, as part of the approval procedure of the sale of buildings or land, the Budget Authority may accept, on a case by case basis that the proceed of that sale is considered assigned revenue, in order to improve facility management by the Commission and facilitate the purchase of other buildings (Article 20(3)(g)).

·Create a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations.

·For the next Multiannual Financial Framework, create the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 205).

14.

5.2 Sectoral rules


·The possibility for the Member States to help also in case of man-made catastrophes like the refugee crisis and to use available funds immediately (without having to wait for the submission of a programme amendment) is introduced in Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Also, a specific investment priority for migrants and refugees is added to simplify the programming of measures to help migrants and refugees under the European Regional Development Fund Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013.

·European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI-Regulation No 1296/2013): in order to increase the adjustment capacity of EaSI to crisis and changing political priorities, flexibility is needed concerning the indicative spending levels foreseen for each of the three axis of the program and for each of the thematic priorities within these. In addition, the derogation allowing use of the European Globalisation Fund for the benefit of young people not in employment, education or training should be maintained given the current economic context.

·Connecting Europe Facility Regulation Nr 1316/2013: Given the success of the Multi-Annual Work Programmes, it is necessary to increase the flexibility so that 95% can be spent on multi-annual programmes and further projects supported with most value added for the Trans European Transport Network (Core Network Corridors, cross border projects and projects on the other sections of the Core Network).

·Management of expenditure for the food chain, animal health and animal welfare (Regulation (EU) No 652/2014): given the positive experience with the application of this rule and the substantial reduction of the related workload on the part of the beneficiaries and of Commission services, it is proposed to extend the possibility to use budgetary commitments divided into annual instalments.

·In Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development, targeting mutual funds helping farmers in case of sharp drops in income in specific sectors shall be allowed, and subsidisation of the initial capital stock of such funds.

15.

6. Focus on results and streamlining reporting


The proposal includes a series of measures aimed at focusing better the budget on results, establishing a clear performance framework, enhancing transparency and streamlining reporting.

16.

6.1 Focus on results


A number of proposals open to all policy areas and focusing on results rather than on what has been actually spent. They demonstrate the Commission's commitment to provide the necessary conditions for a result-oriented approach:

·Allowing for payments based on conditions fulfilled, output or performance in all management modes (e.g. payments per resettled refugee in the AMIF funds or the support for young farmer setting up, Article 121). In such cases, the financing of projects is delinked from the reimbursement of the costs incurred by the recipients of EU funds: it depends directly on the results delivered on the ground. What matters is either the fulfilment of certain conditions as set out ex ante in the basic act or Commission Decisions and/or the achievement of results measured through performance indicators (ex-post). Such system enhances ownership/commitment by the recipients of funds to achieve results. They allow a significant reduction of the administrative burden and of the cost of controls. Controls can indeed be limited to verifying whether the conditions/agreed results have been met and the administrative burden. This in turn limits the risk of legality and regularity errors. It has been advocated by the European Court of Auditors under the name “entitlements”.

·Facilitating 'Prizes'(Title IX): the title on “Prizes” is shortened and simplified; the obligation to announce prizes of a value of EUR 1 million or more in the statements accompanying the draft budget is replaced by prior information of the European Parliament and an explicit announcement of such prizes in the financing decision.

·Single lump sum (Article 176): a 'single lump sum' could in the future cover all eligible costs of the action. Checks and controls will focus exclusively on the outputs/deliverables. The single lump sum is based on the assessment of the budget proposed by the grant applicant in view of the principles of efficiency, economy and effectiveness including by reference to relevant data and/or expert judgment.

·Priority to simplified forms of grants where payment is triggered by output and results (Article 175): an input based approach should only be considered if the output based approach is impossible or not appropriate. Currently simplified forms are predominantly used to cover the value of inputs (e.g. number of man-days, number of travels, number of days spent in mission, etc.). The possibility to pay simplified forms against the delivery of concrete outputs (e.g. a conference delivered, a festival organized, a prototype built, etc.) is similarly encouraged.

·Clarifying the scope of controls of simplified forms of grants and of their consequences if outputs are not delivered (Article 177): controls concentrate on the fulfilment of the conditions triggering the payment (e.g. whether a supported European movie was produced with the needed quality and distributed with the needed quantity, whether an Erasmus student actually studied abroad, etc.). No reporting on the costs actually incurred by the beneficiary is required. If the conditions triggering the payment were not fulfilled or if the agreed activities were implemented poorly, partially or late, the Commission shall reduce the amount of the grant proportionately to the failure and to recover amounts unduly spent.

17.

6.2 A clear performance framework


To complement the stronger focus on results, a clear performance framework is proposed:

·Linking performance, objective-setting, indicators, results and the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of appropriations (Article 31).

·Providing for performance based fees to remunerate organisations for managing EU funds (Article 150);

·Considering programme statements as the main source of programme performance information (Article 39);

·Merging of the 'Synthesis' and 'Article 318 TFEU' reports in one “Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget” to deliver annually a single performance report on the EU budget (as from the 2015 financial year, Article 239).

·Aligning the terminology on evaluation to the provisions of the 2016 Inter Institutional Agreement on better law making and creating a link between ex-ante evaluations under the Financial Regulation and Impact Assessments (Article 32).

18.

6.3 Streamlining reporting


19.

6.3.1. General financial rules


Successive revisions of the Financial Regulation have significantly increased the number of reports and information requested including on accounts: reporting is now provided through scattered documents, delivered along a differed calendar. In order to increasing efficiency and transparency not only towards the budgetary authority but also towards the general public, without however affecting the level of information currently provided, it is proposed:

·To gather reporting obligations around two key moments: reports accompanying

·the draft budget; all reporting on EU-level financial instruments would be merged into a single document accompanying the draft budget (Article 39).

·and those submitted as part of the discharge process: "the integrated financial reporting package” – a separate Chapter would deal with budgetary and other financial reporting (Articles 239-245).

·To make the new Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget, resulting from the merge as from the 2015 financial year, of the Synthesis and of the Article 318 TFEU report is a key element of the integrated reporting package (Article 239).

·To specify that the external audit by the Court of Auditors takes account of the multiannual character of programmes (Article 247(1)).

6.3.2. Reporting:

·Reporting obligations are streamlined by eliminating certain redundancies (CPR).

20.

7. A simpler and leaner EU administration


21.

7.1. General financial rules


A series of simplification measures aims at allowing the EU institutions to work more efficiently, notably by implementing jointly administrative appropriations to achieve economies of scale:

·Providing an explicit legal basis for Service Level Agreements (SLA) between departments of the EU institutions, EU bodies and European offices and extending to all institutions the possibility to conclude service-level agreements facilitating the implementation of administrative appropriations. In the future it will also be possible to delegate implementation of administrative appropriations to an office set up by the Commission.

·Clarifying the distinction between obligatory and non-obligatory tasks of offices (Articles 64 and 65): obligatory tasks must be covered by appropriations entered in the section of the budget relating to the office. Non-obligatory tasks which an office agrees voluntarily to conduct at the request of another institution or body are covered from the budget of the respective institution or body.

·Allowing multiannual financing decisions and reducing the amount of obligatory elements in a financing decision (Article 108). In addition, it is proposed that the financing decision constitutes at the same time the annual or the multi annual work programme. These changes would speed up the implementation of the budget in years 2 and following of a programme.

·Clarifying the rules on Executive Agencies (Article 68): they shall receive an annual contribution; their director acts as authorising officer by delegation when implementing operational appropriations; the delegation of an operational programme to an executive agency may include pilot projects and preparatory actions as well as the implementation of administrative expenditure in order to achieve synergies and economies of scale.

·Merging the Article 139 of the Financial Regulation Panel with the Financial Irregularity Panel (Article 90): for efficiency reasons, the Financial Regulation Panel recommending exclusion and financial penalties on economic operators would also become competent for financial irregularities by EU staff members, while the Disciplinary Board would continue to draw the consequences of these irregularities under the Staff Regulations.

22.

7.2. Sectoral rules


·Several changes of the Common Provisions Regulation are proposed to facilitate programme management and nation-wide programmes as well as Joint Action Plans comprising projects focussing on output and results.

·In the area of direct payments for farmers, support is granted to active farmers and certain measures focus the support on young farmers. Proportionality for financial corrections linked to public procurement errors is introduced to avoid that such errors are always considered as affecting 100% of aid concerned.

23.

8. Other changes


Revenue operations: the following changes are proposed:

·The provision on negative adjustments of own resources for accounting purposes is modified for reasons of transparency (Article 94).

·A new provision sets a time limit within which a debit note shall be sent to the debtor (Article 96 (2)), reflecting recent case law of the Court of Justice.

·A new Article 107 sets the rules concerning the rate to be applied for compensatory interests in cases where an amount shall be reimbursed following a judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union or an amicable settlement.

·The provision concerning fines, other penalties or sanctions is modified to make clear that the amounts provisionally cashed shall be repaid to the third party concerned taking into account the return; and that fines imposed by institutions other than the Commission (e.g. Council in line with Regulation 1173/2011) are also covered by the Financial Regulation (currently limited to fines imposed by the Commission, Article 106).

·Wording on assigned revenue is modified to reflect contributions to measures like the Turkey refugee facility (Article 20(2)).

List of sectoral acts modified by the proposal:

·Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p.3);

·Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on a European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation ("EaSI") and amending Decision No 283/2010/EU establishing a European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion (OJ L 347 20.12.2013, p. 238);

·Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for jobs and growth goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 289–302);

·Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347 20.12.2013, p. 320);

·Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 347 20.12.2013, p. 470);

·Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487–548);

·Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.549);

·Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ L 347 20.12.2013, p. 608);

·Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.671);

·Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855–864);

·Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129–171);

·Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (OJ L 72, 12.3.2014, p. 1–41);

·Regulation (EU) No 283/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on guidelines for trans-European networks in the area of telecommunications infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1336/97/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014, p. 14–26);

·Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 1–32);

·Decision No 541/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a Framework for Space Surveillance and Tracking Support (OJ L 158, 27.5.2014, p. 227–234).