ecsel joint undertaking report to the european parliament€¦ · decision 2014/2132(dec) of 29...

ECSEL JOINT UNDERTAKING REPORTto the European Parliament

in relation to the

Decision 2014/2132(DEC) of 29 April 2014regarding the discharge of the ARTEMIS JU

and the Decision 2014/2135(DEC) of 29 April 2014regarding the discharge of the ENIAC JU

for the financial year 2013

European Parliament resolutionreference paragraphs

ARTEMIS JU ENIAC JUECSEL JU reporting on current status ECA report reference

Budgetary and Financial Management

Topic: ECA opinion on the accounts1. Notes that theCourt of Auditors("the Court") statedthat the 2013 annualaccounts of the JointUndertaking fairlypresent, in allmaterial respects, itsfinancial position asof 31 December 2013and the results of itsoperations and itscash flows for theyear-end, inaccordance with theprovisions of itsFinancial Rules;

1. Notes that theCourt of Auditors("the Court"), in itsreport on the JointUndertaking's annualaccounts for thefinancial year 2013(“the Court’sreport”), stated thatthe JointUndertaking's annualaccounts presentfairly, in all materialrespects, its financialposition as of 31December 2013 andthe results of itsoperations and itscash flows for theyear-end, inaccordance with theprovisions of itsFinancial Rules andthe accounting rulesadopted by theCommission'sAccounting Officer;



Topic: Legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the annual accounts, qualified opinion for three consecutive years because of insufficientinformation on the ex-post audit function2. Takes note thatthe JointUndertaking's expost audit strategywhich was adoptedon 25 November2010 has beenmodified on 20February 2013;ascertains from theCourt's report thatwith themodifications madein 2013, the strategyis a key tool forassessing thelegality andregularity of theunderlyingtransactions;

4. Recalls that theJoint Undertakingadopted an ex postaudit strategy in 2010and that itsimplementationstarted in 2011; notesthat the audit ofproject cost claimshas been delegated tothe NFAs of theMember States; takesnote that the JointUndertaking's ex postaudit strategy relieson the NFAs to auditproject cost claims;



2. Is deeplyconcerned that theCourt issued aqualified opinion, fora third consecutiveyear, on the legalityand regularity of thetransactionsunderlying the annualaccounts, on thegrounds of not beingable to concludewhether or not the expost audit strategy,which relies heavilyon the NationalFunding Authorities(NFAs) auditingproject cost claims,provides sufficientassurance withrespect to the legalityand regularity of theunderlyingtransactions;considers that thequalified opinion putinto question thewillingness of theJoint Undertaking tobe effective andefficient according to

In fact, the ECA did not question the legality and regularity of the transactions, but wasnot able to conclude because it considered “the information available on theimplementation of the Joint Undertaking’s ex post audit strategy as insufficient for it toconclude whether this key control tool is functioning effectively” (see §6 ARTEMIS, §3ENIAC, below).Both JUs deployed considerably efforts to provide the ECA with the maximum ofinformation they could acquire in the frame of the mandate set out for them in theCouncil Regulation EC No 72/2008, respectively 74/2008 that sets limits to its authorityto control the National Funding Authorities:a) According to the “Consolidated Annual Accounts of the European Union”, Page 37,that “ARTEMIS, and ENIAC, although legally referred to as joint undertakings, from anaccounting perspective must be considered as associates because the Commission has asignificant influence, not joint control, over them.”(http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/2013/2013_annual_accounts_en.pdf)b) According to the European Union Accounting Rule No 1, Page 21, an entity shall beaccounted as an associate if (1) the power to govern the financial and operating policies[is NOT] presently exercisable, and (2) the entity [is NOT] able to exercise joint control(together with other venturer(s)) over the entity, but (3) the entity [is] able to exercisesignificant influence over the entity.c) The European Parliament “points out that difficulties may arise as to the boundariesbetween NFA's sovereign authority and the Joint Undertaking's authority” (§7ARTEMIS, §6 ENIAC, below).In such a situation, the ECA can use Article 287 of the TFEU that states on the ECA that“3. The audit shall be based on records and, if necessary, performed on the spot in theother institutions of the Union, on the premises of any body, office or agency whichmanages revenue or expenditure on behalf of the Union and in the Member States,including on the premises of any natural or legal person in receipt of payments from thebudget. In the Member States the audit shall be carried out in liaison with national auditbodies or, if these do not have the necessary powers, with the competent nationaldepartments. The Court of Auditors and the national audit bodies of the Member Statesshall cooperate in a spirit of trust while maintaining their independence. These bodies or

Sent: 02 June 2015 17:10Subject: Fw: ECA visits toNFAs (ARTEMIS-ENIACprojects) - German NFADear Mr Mengel, dear MrRittner,In the framework of the audit ofthe ECSEL Joint Undertaking(former ARTEMIS and ENIACJoint Undertakings), theEuropean Court of Auditors(ECA) intends to visit arepresentative sample ofNational Funding Authorities(NFA) participating in theactivities of ARTEMIS andENIAC Joint Undertakings astaken over by the ECSEL JointUndertaking. In this context,one of the National FundingAuthorities selected for thesevisits is the German NationalFunding Authority.The purpose of the visit is toobtain assurance that the auditscarried out by the GermanNational Funding Authorityunder Article 12.4 of bothCouncil Regulation (EC) No74/2008 of 20 December 2007on the establishment of theARTEMIS Joint Undertaking,



the principle of ''valuefor money''; urgestherefore the JointUndertaking to reportto the dischargeauthority onits strategy to changeswiftly those currentpractices;

departments shall inform the Court of Auditors whether they intend to take part in theaudit.Indeed, the ECA confirmed lately that it will take steps “to obtain assurance that theaudits carried out by the National Funding Authorities under Article 12.4 of bothCouncil Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 … and …No 72/2008 … meet the provisions ofArticle 12 of the above referred Council Regulation” directly from the National FundingAuthorities, by carrying out visits “under the mandate set out in Article 12.5 of theCouncil Regulations” (see the ECA message in the “ECA report reference” column).Complementary to the ECA visits, the ECSEL Joint Undertaking continuing theARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Undertakings will further carry on detailed assessments ofthe national assurance systems.It is our conviction that these concerted activities in line with the mandates set out in theCouncil Regulations for the JUs and, respectively for the ECA, will enable the ECA toconfirm with reasonable assurance the legality and regularity of the transactionsunderlying the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU accounts.

and Council Regulation (EC)No 72/2008 of 20 December2007 setting up the ENIACJoint Undertaking (see footnote1 below) meet the provisions ofArticle 12 of the above referredCouncil Regulations. The visitwill be carried out under themandate set out in Article 12.5of the Council Regulations (seefootnote 2 below). The ECAwill select a sample of 3 to 5audit reports among thoseissued by the JointUndertakings participatingMember States. The list ofthese audit reports will becommunicated to the NationalFunding Authority before thevisit. During the visit, the ECAauditors will require from theNational Funding Authority tobe provided with the underlyingdocumentation supporting theaudit work carried out.The ECA auditors intend tovisit the German NationalFunding Authority inSeptember 2015. The visit willlast three days. In order toagree on the practicalarrangements of the visit, and



to provide more information tothe German National FundingAuthority on its details andscope, we would appreciate tobe provided with the name andcontact details (telephonenumber and e-mail address) ofthe contact person in charge ofthe audits carried on thebeneficiaries of ARTEMIS andENIAC co-funded projects atthe German National FundingAuthority.Within the standard proceduresof the ECA, the Court ofAuditors of the FederalRepublic of Germany will beofficially informed about thevisit and invited to participateat its convenience.We thank you in advance foryour cooperation and remain atyour disposal should you haveany question on this visit.Yours sincerely,Bertrand AlbuguesCOUR DES COMPTESEUROPÉENNEChef d'unité - audit, Dépensesde fonctionnement desinstitutions de l'Unioneuropéenne



(1) Article 12.4 The Joint Undertakingshall carry out on-the-spot checks andfinancial audits among the recipientsof the Joint Undertaking's publicfunding. These checks and audits shallbe performed either directly by theJoint Undertaking or by the JointUndertakings Member States on itsbehalf. The Joint Undertaking MemberStates may carry out any other checksand audits among the recipients oftheir national funding as they deemnecessary and shall communicate theresults to the Joint Undertaking.(2) Article 12.5 The Commissionand/or the Court of Auditors may, asnecessary, carry out on-the-spotchecks among the recipients of theARTEMIS Joint Undertaking'sfunding and the agents responsible forits allocation. To that end, theARTEMIS Joint Undertaking shallensure that grant agreements andcontracts provide for the right of theCommission and/or the Court ofAuditors to carry out, the appropriatecontrols and, in the event of thedetection of irregularities, to imposedissuasive and proportionate penalties.

4. Observes withconcern that theadministrativeagreements signedwith the NFAs donot include practicalarrangements for expost audits, although

Practical arrangements have been put in place in order to implement the obligationsforeseen in the Administrative Agreements by the introduction of the specific reportingform (End of Project Certificate), reinforced by the assessment of the national assurancesystems by the JU and visits to the NFAs by the ECA (see report on current status under§2 ENIAC above). In fact, the National Funding Authorities reported through the End ofProject certificates having audited 52% of all end of project transactions covering 62%of the awarded grants.It is important to underline that during this time the Union financial interests have not



the audit of projectcost claims has beendelegated to theNFAs;

been at risk: end of 2013, only 8 projects out of 104 reached the financial completion,and the two JUs performed only about 20% of the programme payments; in fact, the JUwas and still is in the position to recover any unjustified amount.

5. Notes furthermorethat the JointUndertaking carriedout a limited reviewof cost claims in 2012that concluded thatthe error rate in theprogramme is below 2%; notes the Court'sopinion that theexercise did notinclude any audits anddid not provideassurance as to theregularity of the costclaims reviewed;

The sampling has been one of the elements enhancing the assurance, allowing the JU tomonitor which transactions have been submitted to audits prior to establishing the End ofProject Certificate. The sampling showed that the first national audits started in 2012;they were just a few. Their number increased in 2013 and actually reached a volumeallowing meaningful statistical evaluations in 2014.

5. Notes that the expost strategyadopted by the JointUndertaking statesthat it must assess atleast once a yearwhether the

See §6 ARTEMIS below.



information sent bythe NFAs providesufficient assuranceas to the regularityand legality of theexecutedtransactions;6. Notes thataccording to theCourt's report, theJoint Undertakingreceived auditreports from theNFAs coveringapproximately 46 %of the costs relatingto completedprojects; notes withconcern that theJoint Undertakingdid not assess thequality of thoseaudits and that, bythe end of March2014, the JointUndertaking had notreceived informationon the auditstrategies of sevenout of 23 NFAs;notes moreover thatthe Joint

3. Notes that theCourt considers theinformation availableon theimplementation of theJoint Undertaking’sex post audit strategyas insufficient for it toconclude whether thiskey control tool isfunctioningeffectively; reiteratesits call for the Court,through itsindependent audits, toprovide the dischargeauthority with its ownopinion on thelegality and theregularity of thetransactionsunderlying the JointUndertaking's annualaccounts;

The 23 National Funding Authorities that shared information on their audit strategiesactually represent 95% of the total grants awarded, a proportion much higher thanrequired by the JU ex-post audit strategy. This process has been replaced by theassessment of the national assurance systems based on the checklist. To complement theinformation obtained by the ARTEMIS and ENIAC, the ECA is in the process of usingits mandate set out in the Council Regulations and visit the national Funding Authorityto acquire sufficient information to express an opinion on the legality and regularity ofthe transactions underlying the accounts.



Undertaking wastherefore not in aposition to assesswhether ex postaudits providesufficient assuranceas to the legality andregularity of theunderlyingtransactions;



7. Acknowledgesfrom the JointUndertaking that inaddition to theimprovements to itsex post auditstrategy, an actionplan was submittedwhich aims toremedy thedeficienciesidentified by theCourt in its qualifiedopinion;acknowledgesreceipt from theJoint Undertaking ofthe last update withregard to the ex-postauditimplementation inthe JointUndertaking; awaitsthe Court's opinionon the new formulaproposed for thecalculation of anestimated residualerror rate in the JointUndertaking’stransactions; notesthat the

6. Acknowledgesfrom the JointUndertaking that anaction plan, wassubmitted which aimsto remedy thedeficiencies identifiedby the Court in itsqualified opinion;acknowledges receiptfrom the JointUndertaking of thelast update withregard to the ex-postaudit implementationin the JointUndertaking; awaitsthe Court’s opinionon the new formulaproposed for thecalculation of anestimated residualerror rate in the JointUndertaking’stransactions; notesthat theimplementation of theaction plancommenced in 2014;looks forward to thesuccessfulimplementation of the

The ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs made considerable progress in implementing the actionplan that contained four main points:1) Assess national assurance system based on a check list: in order to assess the essentialelements of an assurance system, a check list has been elaborated and shared with theECA. The JU management used this list to engage in intensive exchanges with the NFAsin order to assess the assurance provided by the national systems. At this point in time,the assessment has been finalised with positive results regarding the strength of thenational assurance systems for countries representing 54% of the total grants, and is in anadvanced phase of execution for further countries that will bring the grant coverage to84%; the assessment will continue to approach 100% coverage.2) Upon the suggestion of the ECA, the ECSEL JU organized on behalf of ARTEMISand ENIAC on 1 October 2014 a “Workshop on Assurance” that highlighted therequirements of the European programmes with this regard and enabled an exchange ofinformation on best practices with the National Funding Authorities. The Workshop hasbeen attended by NFA representatives active in the Joint Undertaking, but also byrepresentatives of ECA, IAS and EC and had the following agenda:

- Welcome, expectations by the Executive Director of the ECSEL JU- The European Court of Auditors as external auditor of the Joint Undertakings

(presentation)- Ex-post audit practices under FP7 by the European Commission (presentation)- National assurance systems by the National Funding Authorities (presentations by

Belgium, Netherlands, UK, intervention by Austria)- Debate: best practice and assurance (all)- Foresight Horizon 2020 by the European Commission- Conclusions by the ECSEL JU

3) Residual error rate estimation: ARTEMIS and ECSEL JU developed a methodologyby similarity with the one utilised by the Commission services in charge of co-managedfunding, well understanding that such entities are given the power to specify proceduresand audit their application, while in the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Undertakings theNational Funding Authorities are empowered to use the national procedures for costeligibility recognition. The first evaluation of the residual error rate based on 157 auditedtransactions was 0.73%; it is appended to the ECSEL Annual Activity Report 2014. A

The ECA did not provide yetany opinion on the procedure toestimate the residual error rate.



implementation ofthe action plancommenced in 2014;looks forward to thesuccessfulimplementation ofthe entire actionplan as well as to theCourt's opinion onits outcome; pointsout that difficultiesmay arise as to theboundaries betweenNFA's sovereignauthority and theJoint Undertaking'sauthority; calls onthe JointUndertaking toprovide a firstinterim evaluationreport on theimplementation ofthe action plan;

entire action plan, aswell as to the opinionof the Court on itsoutcome; points outthat difficulties mayarise on the boundarybetween the NFA'ssovereign authorityand the JointUndertaking'sauthority; calls on theJoint Undertaking toprovide a first interimevaluation report onthe implementation ofthe action plan;

recent update based on 331 audited transactions resulted in an estimated residual errorrate of 0.66%.4) The ECA visiting the National Funding Entities: based on the motivation describedunder as described under ENIAC §2 above, the ECA is organizing visits at NationalFunding Entities to complement the evidence collected by the Joint Undertakings withinthe limits of their mandate set out in the respective Council Regulations.



Topic: Budgetary execution3. Notes thataccording to theCourt's report,payments made in2013 relating tocertificates ofacceptance of costsissued by thenational fundingauthorities ("NFAs")of the MemberStates amounted toEUR 11 700 000,which accounts for57 % of the totaloperational

7. Takes note that theJoint Undertaking'soperational budget for2013 initiallyincluded commitmentappropriations ofEUR 115 600 000 andpaymentappropriations ofEUR 59 700 000;notes that theGoverning Boardadopted an amendingbudget at the year-end, increasingcommitmentappropriations toEUR 170 000 000 anddecreasing paymentappropriations toEUR 36 100 000 andresulting in animplementation ratefor operationalcommitmentappropriations of 100% and 95 % forpaymentappropriations;



8. Ascertains fromthe Court's reportthat the JointUndertaking's initial2013 budgetincludedcommitmentappropriationsamounting to EUR68,9 million and wasamended at the endof the year, thusreducingcommitmentappropriations toEUR 32,6 million;notes with concernthat after thereduction, theutilisation rate ofpaymentappropriations wasonly 69 %, while theutilisation rate foroperationalcommitmentappropriations was99,4 %; the lowbudgetimplementation rateis mainly due to thelengthy and complex



process for thefinancial closure ofprojects;

Calls for proposals

9. Takes note thatthe maximum totalbudget of the JointUndertaking, as perits establishingRegulation, amountsto EUR 410 millionin order to cover theoperationalexpenses; notesfurthermore that thecurrent amount ofcommittedappropriations forthe calls forproposals accountsfor EUR 201million, representing49 % of the totalbudget;

14. Acknowledgesthat the last twocalls for proposalswere launched in2013 and enabledthe JointUndertaking to usethe remaining EUR170 000 000;



10. Is concernedthat there is poorinformationregarding theevaluation of theMember States' andResearch andDevelopmentorganisations'contributionscorresponding to theactual level ofUnion's payments;in line with theinformationreceived, thecontribution of theMember States isunder the level of1,8 as requested bythe JointUndertaking’sstatute; calls on theJoint Undertaking tosubmit a report tothe dischargeauthority concerningthe contributions ofall members otherthan theCommission,including the

8. Is concerned thatthere is limitedinformation availableregarding theevaluation of theMember States' andAENEAS'contributionscorresponding to theactual level of Unionpayments; in line withthe informationreceived, thecontribution of theMember States isunder the level of 1,8as requested by theJoint Undertaking’sstatute; calls on theJoint Undertaking tosubmit a report to thedischarge authorityconcerning thecontributions ofall members otherthan the Commission,including theapplication of theevaluation rules,together with anassessment by theCommission;

The respective Council Regulations establish that ARTEMIS JU has the objective to“establish a public-private partnership aiming at mobilizing and pooling Community,national and private efforts, increasing overall R&D investments in the field ofEmbedded Computing Systems”, and the ENIAC JU has the objective to “establish apublic-private partnership aiming at mobilizing and pooling Community, national andprivate efforts, increasing overall R&D investments in the field of nanoelectronics”.At call launching, the contributions committed by the Member States have always beenat the level of 1,8 the Union commitment. When awarding the grants, however, thecommitments of the Member Stated had to be reduced to comply with the limitationsimposed by the state aid rules, in particular for industrial participants in large ENIACpilot line projects for which the total public funding cannot exceed 25%, while the JUStatutes require continuing allocating the same reimbursement rate to each participant.The resulting contributions have been as follows:ARTEMIS: - Total eligible costs: 1,098,575,080 euro

- Contributions by the R&D organizations participating in projects (private sector):575,277,976 euro (52%)

- Total public funding: 523,297,105 (48%); EU contributions: 181,454,844 euro;ARTEMIS Member States contributions: 341,842,261euro (1,88, higher than theexpected 1,8)

- Leverage of the public funding: 6 to 1.ENIAC: - Total eligible costs: 2,910,760,380 euro

- Contributions by the R&D organizations participating in projects (private sector):1,895,249,965 euro (65%)

- Total public funding: 1,015,510,415 (35%); EU contributions: 450,306,776 euro;ENIAC Member States contributions: 565,203,639 euro (1,26, lower than the expected1,8)

- Leverage of the public funding: 6,5 to 1.In ENIAC, the Member States contributions have been limited at a lower level becauseof the mechanical effect of the state aid rules. However, the lower MS contributions havebeen more than compensated by increased private sector contributions. Theexceptionally strong private sector engagement, carrying 65% of the total costs, resultedin the ENIAC JU fulfilling its objective to increase overall R&D investments, reaching a



application of theevaluation rules,together with anassessment by theCommission;

very high leverage of the Union funding: each euro granted by the Union generated 6.5euro R&D activity in Europe.

Legal framework

11. Takes intoconsideration thatthe new FinancialRegulationapplicable to thegeneral budget ofthe Union wasadopted on 25October 2012 andtook effect on 1January 2013while the modelfinancialregulation forpublic-privatepartnership bodiesreferred to inArticle 209 of thenew FinancialRegulation did notenter into forceuntil 8 February

15. Takes intoconsideration thatthe new FinancialRegulationapplicable to thegeneral budget ofthe Union wasadopted on 25October 2012 andtook effect on 1January 2013 whilethe model financialregulation forpublic-privatepartnership bodiesreferred to inArticle 209 of thenew FinancialRegulation did notenter into force until8 February 2014;notes that the Joint



2014; notes thatthe financial rulesof the JointUndertaking havenot been amendedto reflect thesechanges becauseof the merger intoECSEL JointUndertaking;

Undertaking'sfinancial rules havenot been amendedto take into accountthe model financialregulation becauseof the merger intothe ECSEL JointUndertaking;

12. Notes theJoint Statement bythe Parliament, theCouncil and theCommission(1)and the subsequentpolitical agreementreached on theseparate dischargeto be given by theParliament uponrecommendationof the Council, forJoint Undertakings

16. Notes the JointStatement by theParliament, theCouncil and theCommission(1) andthe subsequentpolitical agreementreached on theseparate dischargefor JointUndertakings underArticle 209 of theFinancialRegulation;



under Article 209of the FinancialRegulation;

13. Reiterates itsdemand to theCourt to present acomplete andappropriatefinancialassessment ofrights andobligations of theJoint Undertakingfor the period upto the date of theECSEL JointUndertakingstarting activity;

17. Reiterates itsdemand to the Courtto present acomplete andappropriatefinancial assessmentof rights andobligations of theJoint Undertakingfor the period upto the date ofECSEL JointUndertakingstarting activity;

Internal control systems



14. Is concernedthat the JointUndertaking hasnot set up aninternal auditcapability asrequired by Article6(2) of itsestablishingRegulation; notesmoreover thatalthough themission charter ofthe Commission'sInternal AuditService (IAS) wasadopted by theGoverning Boardon 25 November2010, the financialrules of the JointUndertaking havenot been amendedin order to includethe provision ofthe modelfinancialregulationreferring to the

Due to the merger, the Internal Audit Capability established in ENIAC JU became alsothe Internal Audit Capability of ARTEMIS JU.



powers of the IAS;

15. Takes notethat in 2013, theIAS performed anaudit on theadequacy andeffectiveness ofthe JointUndertaking'sinternal controlsystem with regardto management ofexperts;acknowledgesfrom the auditconclusions thatthe current internalcontrol systemprovides

10. Acknowledgesthat the Commission'sInternal Audit Service(IAS) audited theadequacy andeffectiveness of theGrant Managementprocess in 2013,reaching theconclusion that theprocedures in placeare providingreasonableassurances; notes thatthe report includes anumber ofrecommendations, themain two of themconcerning the setting



reasonableassurance for theachievement of theJoint Undertakingsobjectives asregards themanagement ofexperts;furthermore, notesthat severalimportantrecommendationswere maderegarding theadoption of acomprehensiveconfidentialitypolicy as well asfor the sensitivityof the programmeofficer's post andfor the rules forthe allocation ofthe workload forthe remoteevaluators;

up of a documentedprocess for selectingexperts and controlover access rightshaving beenaddressed by the JointUndertaking;



16. Acknowledgesthat the JointUndertaking,along with theClean Sky,ENIAC, FCH andIMI JointUndertakings hasbeen the subject ofan IT riskassessment of theirshared ITinfrastructureperformed by theIAS;

11. Takes note thatthe Joint Undertaking,along with Clean Sky,Artemis, FCH andIMI JointUndertakings, was thesubject of an IT RiskAssessmentperformed by the IASon the common ITinfrastructure theyshare; notes from thereport the need toformalise IT securitypolicies as well as theneed to includedetailed procedures infuture contracts withIT service providers;

17 Acknowledgesfrom the Court'sreport that theDisaster RecoveryPlan for the JointUndertaking'scommon ITinfrastructure hasnot been approved;notes that the JointUndertaking hastaken measure at

The Disaster Recovery Plan for the Joint Undertaking's common IT infrastructureis now approved.



its own level inorder to deal withemergencysituations;

Conflicts ofinterest

Prevention andmanagement ofconflicts ofinterests andtransparency

18. Notes withgreat concern thatthe JointUndertaking failedto respect the 2014recommendationsof the dischargeauthority and didnot adopt acomprehensivepolicy for theprevention andmanagement ofconflict ofinterests; reiteratesthe need for a cleardefinition of the

18. Acknowledgesthat the JointUndertaking hastakencomprehensivemeasures to preventconflicts of interestand has publishedthem on its website;notes from theCourt's report thatfurtherimprovementsshould beconsidered such assetting up adatabase to include

Thanks to the merger, the comprehensive policy of the ENIAC JU has alsobecome applicable to ARTEMIS JU.



concept of conflictof interest, whichhas to include thefinancial as well asthe non-financialinterest;

all informationconcerning conflictsof interest;

19. Urges theJoint Undertakingto proceed to arapid, completeand in-depthdisclosure of CVsand declaration ofinterests by itsExecutive Directorand members ofthe GoverningBoard bySeptember 2015;requests as wellthe creation of aregularly updateddatabase whichincludes allinformation related

19. Calls on theJoint Undertaking toinform thedischarge authorityabout the progressof the databaseconcerning conflictsof interest;

The CV and declarations of the ARTEMIS Executive Director and managers asper the applicable Staff Regulations and implementing rules have been collectedand posted on the web site. A comprehensive database has been established andis regularly maintained.



to conflicts ofinterest and aprocedure tomanage themalong with amechanism fordealing withbreaches of thepolicy bySeptember 2015;

20. Calls upon theJoint Undertakingto adoptcomprehensivepolicies for themanagement ofconflict of interestsituations such asdivestment of theinterest by thepublic official,recusal of thepublic officialfrom involvementin an affecteddecision-makingprocess, restriction

See §18 ARTEMIS above.



of access by theaffected publicofficial toparticularinformation,rearrangement ofthe public official'sduties orresignation of thepublic officialfrom their office;21. As the JointUndertaking hasmerged in 2014,the dischargeauthority calls onthe ECSEL JointUndertaking not toperpetuate the lackof a policy onmanagement ofconflicts ofinterest;

The JU assures the discharge authority that the issue has been addressed andclosed in line with the requirements formmulated by the discharge authority.



Monitoring and reporting of research results

22. Takes notethat the SeventhFrameworkProgrammeDecision(2)establishes amonitoring andreporting systemrelated to theprotection,dissemination andtransfer ofresearch results;ascertains that theJoint Undertakinghas developed inthis regardprocedures inorder to monitorthe protection anddissemination oftheir researchresults at differentproject stages;note with concernfrom the Court'sreport the further

12. Takes note thatthe SeventhFrameworkProgrammeDecision establishesa monitoring andreporting systemrelated to theprotection,dissemination andtransfer of researchresults; ascertainsthat the JointUndertaking hasdeveloped in thisregard procedures inorder to monitor theprotection anddissemination oftheir researchresults at differentproject stages; notewith concern fromthe Court's reportthe further need ofdevelopment inorder to fully meet

The JU is of the opinion that it is compliant with all requests expressed so far bythe FP7 coordinators with regard to monitoring the protection and disseminationof the results, showing a very high productivity, both in publications (211.5publication/10 million EU grants)and in patents (16.6 patents /10 million EUgrants). The JU is open to any concrete suggestions as to how to further improveits systems.



need ofdevelopment inorder to fully meetthe provisions ofthe Decision;

the provisions of theDecision;



23. Acknowledgesthat betweenSeptember 2012and February2013, theCommission'sSecond InterimEvaluation wascarried outassessing the JointUndertakingtogether with theENIAC JointUndertaking interms of relevance,effectiveness,efficiency andresearch quality;takes note that thereport was issuedin May 2013 andcontained severalrecommendationsfor the JointUndertaking; notesthat theserecommendationsrelate to theefficiency of

13. Acknowledgesthat betweenSeptember 2012 andFebruary 2013, theCommission carriedout its SecondInterim Evaluationin order to assessthe JointUndertaking and theARTEMIS JointUndertaking interms of relevance,effectiveness,efficiency andresearch quality;takes note that thereport was issued inMay 2013 andcontained severalrecommendationsfor the JointUndertaking; recallsthat the measuresconcern theefficiency of projectreviews, measuresto be taken toimprove the match



project reviews,the improvementof the match of theproject portfolio tostrategic Europeanaims and theappropriateness ofthe metrics formeasuring theimpact and successof its projects;

of the projectportfolio to strategicUnion aims and theappropriate metricsfor measuring theimpact and successof its projects;

24 Calls on theJoint Undertakingto submit a reportto the dischargeauthority on thesocial-economicbenefits of thealready completedprojects; calls forthat report to besubmitted to the

9. Calls on the JointUndertaking tosubmit a report to thedischarge authority onthe social-economicbenefits of the alreadycompleted projects;calls for that report tobe submitted to thedischarge authoritytogether with anassessment by the

A report on the socio-economic benefits has been submitted directly to the Parliamentand has been included in the ECSEL Annual Activity Report 2014. An updated versionis appended to this report; it has been shared with the High-level group in charge of theFP7 assessment.



discharge authoritytogether with anassessment by theCommission;

Commission;

25. Recalls thatthe dischargeauthority haspreviouslyrequested theCourt to draw up aspecial report onthe capacity of thejoint undertakings,together with theirprivate partners, toensure added valueand efficientexecution ofUnion research,technologicaldevelopment anddemonstrationprogrammes.

20. Recalls that thedischarge authorityhas previouslyrequested the Courtto draw up a specialreport on thecapacity of the jointundertakings,together with theirprivate partners, toensure added valueand efficientexecution of Unionresearch,technologicaldevelopment anddemonstrationprogrammes.

ecsel joint undertaking report to the european parliament€¦ · decision 2014/2132(dec) of 29...

Documents