Changes from plenary report to adopted text

Change 1

Removed2. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Added2. European Parliament resolution of 7 May 2025 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023, Section V – Court of Auditors (2024/2023(DEC))

Removedwith observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023, Section V – Court of Auditors

Change 2

Changed1. Notes that the budget of the Court falls under MFF headingHeading 7, ‘European public administration’, which amounted to EUR 12,3 billion in 2023 (representing 6,4 % of the total Union budget); notes that the Court’s budget of approximately EUR 0,2 billion represents approximately 1,5 % of the total administrative expenditure of the Union and less than 0,1 % of total Union spending;

Change 3

Changed1. the higher-than-budgeted level of inflation and the resulting price indexations affecting new and existing contracts, which triggered additional budgetary needs to cover non-salary expenditure and, in particular, the energy and IT budget lines; those increases in appropriations were eventually made possible mainly as a result of an underutilisation of some appropriations in Chapter 101 0 (Members of the Institutions), in Chapter 121 2 (Officials and temporary staff) and in Title 2 on budget lines such as Publications, Limited consultations, studies and surveys and Interpretation costs;

Change 4

Changed20. Calls on the Court to expand its audit scope to include European Investment Bank (EIB) operations financed with the EIB’s own funds, given the EIB’s growing role in EU economic,financial,economic, financial, and industrial policy; urges the Commission and Member States to grant ECAthe Court the legal mandate required for this expansion;

Change 5

Changed23. Is alarmed that the recruitment process required additional effort, as around 50 % of candidates turned down the job offers from the Court, in part due to the limited attractiveness of Luxembourg as a place of employment and the high cost of living; notes, however, that the big audit firms present in Luxembourg are also facing challenges and are now turning to Asian markets to recruit auditors; stresses that such an approach cannot be applied by the Court due to security and eligibility concerns; acknowledges the Court'sCourt’s efforts and encourages it to collaborate with other Luxembourg-based institutions within the High Level Interinstitutional Group to enhance Luxembourg’s appeal to prospective staff through identified measures, such as higher relocation allowances, housing allowances to mitigate high rental costs for lower-grade staff and reasonably priced temporary housing for short stays to make employment in Luxembourg more attractive;

Change 6

Changed24. Recalls the Treaty on the European Union, that the EU and its institutions, shall promote solidarity and equality between women and men;

Change 7

Changed26. Shares the Court’s observations that EPSO competitions do not always achieve the objective of attracting and selecting relevant profiles of candidates from the private sector; highlights the several issues with EPSO competitions, for example technical problems with remote testing leading to the cancellation of one competition and putting all others on hold; acknowledges the concerns related to the recruitment and the selection procedures of new staff; encourages the Court to continue its effort to address this situation in order to safeguard the continuity of the Court'sCourt’s activity; notes with appreciation that the Court has engaged in cooperation with EPSOthe European Personnel Selection Office in order to organise audit competitions at regular intervals; suggests possible cooperation with other relevant Union bodies in order to optimise hiring processes;

Change 8

Changed34. Regrets that over the years the Council repeatedly proceedshas torepeatedly nominatenominated members of the Court despite those nominees beingtheir rejectedrejection by Parliament; underlinesemphasizes that Parliament should have a binding role in assessingevaluating the suitability of candidates for the Court;