Descripción proceso de selección de personal

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph General observations 2.1-15 Introduction 2.1-2.5 Surplus 2.6-2.10 Carryover of appropriations 2.11-2.13

European Union Solidarity Fund 2.14-2.15

Specific observations 2.16-2.43 Own resources 2.16-2.17 Agriculture 2.18-2.20 Structural measures 2.21-2.30 Internal policies 2.31-2.33 External actions 2.34-2.35 Administrative expenditure 2.36-2.37 Pre-accession aid 2.38-2.43

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Introduction

2.1. The annual budget of the European Union is set by the budgetary authority (Council and Parliament) on the basis of proposals presented by the Commission. The implementation of the budget is the responsibility of the Commission. The use of more than 80 % of the available funds depends on requests from Member or beneficiary States to finance EU programmes.

2.2. The purpose of the Court’s observations is to pro- vide an overview of the issues at both a general level and by individual revenue and expenditure areas, to identify problems and to make recommendations for improvement.

2.3. More detailed information can be obtained from the Commission document entitled ‘Report on budget- ary and financial management — Financial year 2002’ (1_{). The Commission’s report constitutes a con-} siderable improvement on the analyses prepared in pre- vious years. It is logically structured, comprehensive and contains for the most part (2_{) a consistent and} coherent level of detail.

2.4. The 2002 payments appropriations increased by 2 % compared with 2001, with agriculture and preac- cession aid receiving the major share of the additional appropriations. The commitment and payments appro- priations remained, by respectively 2 204 million euro and 4 590 million euro, below their financial perspec- tive ceilings, which set the overall limit for expenditure for a particular year.

(1_{) To be published by 30 November 2003 in the Official}

Journal of the European Unionwith the annual accounts of the European Communities.

(2_{) There remain some areas where additional analysis and}

explanation are needed, for example in the area of exter- nal actions, and concerning the use of administrative appropriations in the operatingl part of the budget (the so-called ‘BA’ lines).

2.5. Table 2.1gives an overview of the budgetary out- turn for the 2002 financial year for both commitments and payments. This shows an overall implementation rate of 98 % for commitment appropriations (2001: 97 %) and 86 % for payment appropriations (2001: 82 %). The implementation of commitments for the year raises no material observations on the part of the Court, so the remainder of this text is almost exclusively devoted to payments.

Table 2.1 — Implementation of the 2002 budget by financial perspective heading

(million euro and %)

Financial perspective heading

Financial perspective

ceiling

Budget Implementation of the budget

Initial appropri- ations (1₎ Final appropri- ations (2₎ Commit- ments and payments made Implemen- tation rate % Appropri- ations car- ried over to 2003 % of final appropri- ations available Appro- priations cancelled % of final appropri- ations available (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (d)/(c) (f) (g) = (f)/(c) (h) (i) = (h)/(c)

Commitment appropriations

1. Common agricultural policy 46 587 44 255,1 44 354,1 43 217,0 97,4 83,9 0,2 1 053,2 2,4

2. Structural operations 32 768 33 838,0 34 017,4 34 011,7 100,0 1,4 0,0 4,2 0,0 3. Internal policies 6 558 6 557,8 7 973,7 7 614,0 95,5 213,2 2,7 146,5 1,8 4. External action 4 873 4 803,0 5 207,3 5 085,3 97,7 71,4 1,4 50,5 1,0 5. Administrative expenditure 5 012 5 175,6 5 381,5 5 272,3 98,0 74,3 1,4 34,9 0,6 6. Reserves 676 676,0 510,8 170,5 33,4 8,8 1,7 331,5 64,9 7. Pre-accession aid 3 328 3 328,0 3 531,9 3 503,9 99,2 21,9 0,6 6,2 0,2 Total 99 802 98 633,5 100 976,6 98 874,7 97,9 474,9 0,5 1 627,0 1,6 Payment appropriations

1. Common agricultural policy 44 255,1 44 940,0 43 520,6 96,8 315,1 0,7 1 104,4 2,5

2. Structural operations 32 129,0 31 603,3 23 499,0 74,4 3 254,3 10,3 4 849,9 15,3 3. Internal policies 6 157,4 7 956,8 6 566,7 82,5 749,6 9,4 640,6 8,1 4. External action 4 665,4 4 969,8 4 423,7 89,0 68,3 1,4 477,8 9,6 5. Administrative expenditure 5 175,6 5 856,6 5 211,6 89,0 548,0 9,4 97,0 1,7 6. Reserves 676,0 651,8 170,5 26,2 8,8 1,4 472,5 72,5 7. Pre-accession aid 2 595,1 2 600,9 1 752,4 67,4 50,5 1,9 798,0 30,7 Total 100 078 95 653,5 98 579,3(3_{) 85 144,5 86,4 4 994,5(}3_{) 5,1 8 440,3 8,6}

(1_{) Budget finally adopted by the European Parliament on 13 December 2001 (OJ L 29, 31.1.2002).}

(2_{) Budget appropriations amended after taking into account supplementary and amending budgets and transfers, and including appropriations carried over from 2001,}

appropriations resulting from the contributions by third parties and other revenue corresponding to a defined purpose, and appropriations made available again. (3_{) Column total does not agree with sum of individual entries for reasons of rounding.}

Source:2002 revenue and expenditure account.

Surplus

2.6. As in the previous two years, there was a signifi- cant, albeit smaller, surplus of revenue over expenditure (see Table 2.2) (3_{). For 2002 the surplus amounted to} 7 422 million euro, compared with 15 014 million euro in 2001 and 11 619 million euro in 2000. Surpluses arise when the Commission is unable to carry out all of the budgeted expenditure and does not make a corre- sponding reduction in the revenue for the year (4_{). This} means that, as the calls for GNP resources from Mem- ber States are made in accordance with the decision of the budgetary authority on the level of expenditure when adopting the budget, more such resources are called up than are needed to cover the actual level of expenditure.

2.7. As the Treaty does not allow the EU budget to be in deficit, a small surplus may always be expected, par- ticularly as it is unlikely that the appropriations will all be spent for a particular year. Indeed, a surplus may result from sound management of funds to the extent that expenditure is only incurred when appropriate processes and procedures are in place and adequately prepared projects and programmes have been accepted for financing. However, there is a need for a policy of more active management of emerging surpluses and a faster response when they are identified. The surplus for 2002, while less than previous years, is still very high.

2.6. The procedure for the calls for GNP resources from Member States means that the Commission does not have lee- way to adjust the calls in line with the level of realised expen- diture. In principle, an adjustment could be done with a supplementary and amending budget (SAB), but as discussed in point 2.10, it is normally not a practical option. Accord- ingly, the adjustment is done in the year n + 1 with an SAB regarding the surplus of the previous year. Another possibility is a letter of amendment at the end of year n reducing the Member State contributions from 1 January n + 1. The lat- ter was done in 2003 for an amount of EUR 1 billion.

(3_{) The presentation of the figures leading to the surplus in}

Table 2.2 follows a different approach from that of the Commission. The resulting surplus is the same as that of the Commission. The Court’s presentation is based on the budget implementation data in Table 2.1 and Diagrams I and IV in Annex I. The Commission’s presentation fol- lows the requirements of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implement- ing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and established practice.

(4_{) A surplus could also be due to the Commission receiving}

more revenue than budgeted, due, for example, to higher than expected yields on traditional own resources. This was not, however, the major cause of the very high sur- pluses of recent years.

2.8. As Table 2.2 shows, the surplus was caused mainly by lower than expected spending on structural measures (4 850 million euro), agriculture (1 104 mil- lion euro), internal policies (640 million euro), pre- accession aid (798 million euro) and external actions (478 million euro). In the case of structural measures the lack of demand for funds arose mainly from delays by Member States in making final claims for the 1994 to 1999 programming period, and, to a lesser extent, continuing (but much reduced) delays in implementing the 2000 to 2006 programming period. The final dead- line for the closure of the former programming period was 31 March 2003 and Member States did not submit most final claims until shortly before that date. As a result the Commission carried forward 3 254 million euro to 2003 to cover the resulting final payments. This reduced the reported surplus by the same amount. The Court has significant doubts that the Commission will

2.8. The payment appropriations in the 2003 budget for pre-2000 Structural Fund programmes, including the amounts carried forward from 2002, equal the amounts Member States forecast they would claim at the closure of these programmes, less 5 % of the outstanding commitments (RAL) at the end of 2001, which were entered in the PDB 2004 to cover payments delayed for legal reasons. At the time when the Commission decided on the carryover in mid-February, the gap between the then available forecasts and budget appropriations for 2003 implied a need for a car- ryover of EUR 3 254 million.

Due to the late arrival in bulk of closure documents just before the deadline of 31 March 2003, the mixed quality of these

Table 2.2 — Composition of surplus 2002 (and 2001)

(million euro)

2002 2001

Revenue

Budgeted Collected Contribution_{to surplus} Budgeted Collected Contribution_{to surplus}

Own resources 80 926 79 775 – 1 151 81 470 79 736 – 1 734

Other 15 126 15 659 533 12 665 14 553 1 888

Total 96 052 95 434 – 618 94 135 94 289 154 Expenditure

Underspending(1₎ Less carryover

to 2003(2₎ Underspending(1) Less carryover_{to 2002(}2₎

Agriculture 1 419 – 315 1 104 2 542 – 685 1 857 Structural measures 8 104 – 3 254 4 850 10 539 0 10 539 Internal policies 1 390 – 750 640 1 182 – 707 475 External actions 546 – 68 478 689 – 238 451 Administration 645 – 548 97 652 – 534 118 Reserves 481 – 9 472 669 0 669 Pre-accession aid 849 – 51 798 901 – 24 877 Rounding 1 1 – 1 – 1 Total 13 435 – 4 995 8 440 17 173 – 2 188 14 985 Exchange differences – 253 73 Other(3_{) – 147 – 198} Total surplus 7 422 15 014

(1_{) Includes the cancellation of unused credits brought forward of 309 million euro (1 804 million euro in 2001).}

(2_{) Amount carried over includes 684 million euro in respect of third party revenues for which the usual cancellation rules for carryovers do not apply (550 million}

euro in 2001).

(3_{) Sundry elements mainly related to reused credits carried forward.}

Source:2002 revenue and expenditure account.

be in a position to use a large part of these appropria- tions in 2003. See paragraphs 2.25 to 2.26, 5.16 to 5.21, 5.38 to 5.40 and 5.56 for more information.

2.9. If the Commission is to be able to introduce a supplementary and amending budget (SAB) to reduce the amount of revenue to nearer the level of forecast expenditure, and thereby reduce the surplus, it needs to be aware of the risk of excessive underspending suffi- ciently in advance of the year end. To help it to plan the need for, and use of, funds for structural measures the Commission requests forecasts of spending from Mem- ber States. In practice these forecasts significantly and systematically overestimate the need for funds. This also applies when estimates are revised during the year, even when performance to date is behind target.

2.10. During the 2002 budgetary procedure the bud- getary authority made a joint declaration requiring the Commission to provide an implementation plan for the 2002 budget. Following an initial plan prepared in June 2002, an updated version was produced in October 2002 based on utilisation to date and revised estimates. This forecast an overall 11 % underspending of pay- ment appropriations, mainly arising from the Struc- tural Funds. Despite this information the Commission did not take the opportunity to propose a SAB to reduce the amount of revenue in line with the reduced need for funds.

documents and the need for the Commission to make the appropriate checks before final payment, more payments will be delayed into 2004 than those already foreseen in the PDB 2004. The information now available also indicates a sig- nificant volume of previously unforeseen decommitments. These will add to the underimplementation in 2003 foreseen by the Court. The Commission will consider making appro- priate proposals to the budgetary authority in this regard.

2.9. Despite the fact that, in global terms, Member States’ forecasts have systematically overestimated the need for funds by a significant amount, they remain the best information on payment needs the Commission receives from sources closer to the execution of programmes on the ground. This is the con- sequence of shared management and there is no real alterna- tive to the bottom-up approach. The Commission is making significant efforts to improve the forecasts in cooperation with the Member States. In view of the inaccurate forecasts received in the past, the Commission has written to the Member States several times reminding them how important it is for it to have high quality implementation forecasts for each pro- gramme on time.

The Commission also endeavours to make good use of the payment appropriations available by carrying out transfers such as the one to the Cohesion Fund (see point 2.16).

2.10. The forecast underspending was associated with a considerable degree of uncertainty, particularly relating to the Structural Funds, and could not therefore be used as such for an SAB. The Commission, however, acknowledges that the forecast ultimately overestimated the actual implementation.

The SAB is a rather complicated procedure for reducing rev- enue as it requires at least one reading in Parliament and the Council and the acceptance of the Ecofin Council. Because of the forecasting uncertainty due to the usual concentration of Member States’ payment claims towards the end of the year, an SAB procedure completed before mid-November is risky. If it is adopted after that date, under Article 10(3) of Regula- tion (EC) No 1150/2000, the readjustments of revenue will apply starting from January n + 1. However, the Commission

Carryover of appropriations

2.11. In its Opinion (5_{) on the new Financial Regula-} tion, the Court stated that the carryover procedure, whereby unused budgetary appropriations are carried forward for use during the following financial year, con- stitutes an unnecessary complication to both the bud- getary process (6_{) and the accounting system. The} amounts involved are often low and concern obliga- tions which could be covered by appropriations belong- ing to the following year, made available, if necessary, through the SAB procedure.

2.12. For 2002 the appropriations brought forward from 2001 totalled 411 million euro for commitments and 1 540 million euro for payments (7_{). In respect of} the commitments, the subsequent utilisation was almost total, whereas for payments 309 million euro (or 23 %) was cancelled. The majority (79 %) of the carry-over related to agriculture and administrative expenditure — both non-differentiated appropriations subject to auto- matic carryovers. However, 65 % of the payment appro- priations cancelled related to carryovers for internal policies and external action. Both of these areas were

is prepared to use an earlier SAB when the under- implementation is sizeable and sufficiently certain to occur.

An alternative solution would be the letter of amendment pro- cedure at the end of October, used mainly for actual EAGGF implementation on 15 October, including an estimation of the balance at the year- end which, after the Council’s second reading, will be entered as revenue in Article 3 0 0 in the budget n + 1.

In both cases the reductions are in force only in January n + 1.

2.11. The carryover procedure is a part of the regulatory framework. It provides additional budgetary appropriations with a fast and fairly simple procedure, compared to an SAB, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled (mainly that the budgetary appropriations would otherwise be insufficient to meet the Commission’s payment obligations). Accordingly, the Commission does not share the Court’s view on the draw- backs of the carryover procedure.

2.12. The carryover decisions have to be made as early as in mid-February on the basis of a forecast on the overall need for payment appropriations for the budget headings con- cerned, in order to cover a possible lack of appropriations. These forecasts are subject to uncertainties. It should also be noted that underimplementation in 2001 does not necessar- ily imply underimplementation in 2002, but the situation could actually be the reverse, i.e. a need for additional appro- priations in order to catch up. The reasons for the overall underutilisation of payment appropriations for internal poli- cies and external action included unforeseen delays of

(5_{) Opinion No 2/2001 (OJ C 162, 5.6.2001).}

(6_{) For example, separate allocations are used for carryovers}

in the accounting system, and are subject to separate rules governing their use.

(7_{) Excluding 648 million euro of earmarked revenue relat-}

ing to the research field.

subject to significant underspending in 2001, and previ- ously, which should have indicated that a carryover was probably not necessary.

2.13. For 2002 the amount carried forward to 2003 was reduced to 145 million euro for commitments, but increased significantly to 4 995 million euro in respect of payments. The main cause of this increase was the 3 254 million euro carried forward within the Struc- tural Funds relating to the closure of the 1994 to 1999 programming period, for which the deadline for the final receipt of claims is March 2003. There is, however, a strong possibility that these carried-over appropria- tions will not be used (8_{) because of the risk of delays in} processing the closure claims.

European Union Solidarity Fund

2.14. As a consequence of the floods in central Europe in the summer of 2002, a supplementary and amend- ing budget was adopted in November 2002 establish- ing a new financial instrument in the internal policies area: the European Union Solidarity Fund. The Fund is intended to cover expenditure resulting from unex- pected disasters and is financed by a new flexibility mechanism which allows up to 1 000 million euro to be made available each year above the financial per- spective ceilings. It covers the Member States and can- didate countries.

2.15. The amount of 728 million euro granted to Aus- tria, France, Germany and the Czech Republic in 2002 was financed by a transfer of payment appropriations from the Structural Funds. The payments were made to the Member States concerned under budget heading B2-4 0 0 in internal policies (599 million euro), and to the Czech Republic under budget heading B7-0 9 0 in preaccession aid (129 million euro).

programme and project approvals, resulting in delayed com- mitments and, consequently, in lower-than-planned advance and other payments.

2.13. The bulk of payment claims for the Structural Funds was received just before the final deadline for their receipt by the Commission. The Commission is endeavouring to process all acceptable payment claims received as soon as possible. As to the expected under-execution of payment appropriations, the Commission will consider making appropriate proposals to the Budgetary Authority (See also the comment to point 2.8)

(8_{) The new Financial Regulation requires the Commission to}

use the payment appropriations of the year before those carried forward.

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

Own resources

2.16. The amount of traditional own resources (cus- toms and agricultural duties, and sugar levies) made available to the Commission — 11 237 million euro — was 23 % lower than in 2001, mainly due to an increase from 10 % to 25 % in the amount Member States retain by way of collection costs. The underlying total of duties and levies fell by 7,7 %, reflecting both a fall in the value of imports and a decrease in duty rates for certain types of import. The change in collection costs, introduced by a new own resources decision (9_{) that entered into force} on 1 March 2002, covered all duties and levies estab- lished from 1 January 2001, with retroactive effect. Therefore during 2002 the Commission repaid to Mem- ber States a further amount of 2 023 million euro to adjust retentions made at the 10 % rate in 2001.

2.17. The GNP resource increased by 32 % compared with 2001 in order to meet the reduction in customs and agricultural duties, a decrease in the VAT call-up rate from 1 % to 0,75 % following the new own resources decision, and the repayment of 2 023 million euro relating to the adjustment of the traditional own resources collection costs referred to in the previous paragraph. As explained in paragraph 2.10, in the absence of action to reduce the surplus by means of a supplementary and amending budget, the GNP own resource was up to 7 422 million euro greater than needed to cover actual expenditure, representing around 16 % of this resource.

2.17. As discussed in the Commission’s reply under point 2.6, the Commission does not have leeway to adjust the rev- enues without a decision by the Budgetary Authority on an SAB.

(9_{) Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 Septem-}

ber 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ L 253, 7.10.2000, p. 42).

Agriculture

2.18. Agricultural expenditure represents the largest proportion of the budget by value. For 2002 the budget provided for expenditure of 44 940 million euro. Final expenditure was 43 521 million euro representing almost 97 % of available payment appropriations (10_).

2.19. Unused payment appropriations amounted to 1 419 million euro, resulting mainly from a 798 million euro underuse of ancillary expenditure (veterinary mea- sures etc.) due to delayed decisions on measures in rela-