Im Court committee The MPs discussed with the representative of Austria in the EU Development Court, Helga Berger, topics of the EU budget. The MPs gained insights into the annual report 2023 of the EU Development Court. Accordingly, no significant error rate was found in the income. According to the report, they were properly and properly. On the other hand, the EU or Member States, too often, were not adequately observed in payments. Berger emphasized that the error rate has increased to 5.6 %.
Peter Schmiedlechner (FPÖ) questioned consequences due to the error rate of 5.6 % and called for more transparency about the use of tax money. Berger recognized several causes of errors: actual suspicion of fraud, those cases in which Ignore and wait for what happens. In addition, errors are based on unclear and lack of administrative capacities.
Resentment over the variety of open reports and absence of government members
At the meeting, no report by the Austrian Court of Auditors was discussed, which led to displeasure among deputies. After all, there are currently 78 reports on the waiting list, as David Stögmüller (Greens) carried out under great protest. Wolfgang Zanger (FPÖ) was also not very pleased that “no minister is answering questions, even though the government is more large and expensive as never before”. The committee chairman Douglas Hoyos-Trautmansdorff (NEOS) underlined that it is intended to do the presence of State Secretary on all appointments of the Court of Auditors’ Minister: Interior or State Secretary: Inside, the opposition was not enough. This time the schedule did not make it possible for a minister to be present, Harald Servus (ÖVP) regretted. Since the committee of current reports from the European Auditors’ Court is spoken, the committee date has its full authorization, emphasized Karin Greiner (SPÖ).
Lessons Learned: Examination of the Corona Redewond Association ARF
Berger reported on the examination of the Corona rehabilitation, also known as the building and resilience facility (ARF). This was decided in response to the Covid 19 crisis in December 2020. 650 billion ꞓ of the original financial framework of 723.8 billion ꞓ (grants and loans) were used, emphasized the representative. A new logic had been used for the first time, in which withdrawals were not based on cost refunds, but on the basis of nationally defined goals and milestones. The national structure and resilience plans (NRP) would have specified the central framework conditions without the obligation for national co-financing. Investments and in particular structural policy reforms were intended to contribute to the implementation of country -specific recommendations within the framework of the European semester. In addition, a retroactive financing of eligible projects was made possible in the period from February 2020 to August 2026.
Berger stated that the examination results were more honest to title the ARF as a budget aid, “said Berger, instead, indicators of climate and digitization were created. One wanted to leave the cost refund principle, “but that speaks with the rapid help in a crisis situation”. The funds are limited by the end of 2026, so Berger expects ambitious last milestones to invest in 2026. It is questionable whether the period must be extended beyond 2026. Berger saw the problem that no controls beyond 2026 are provided.
The ARF is not a performance -based instrument, says Berger. There is a limited result of results. Information about the actual costs would be missing. For the test research, what was achieved with the money was unclear. There was also criticism due to unclear definitions of the payment terms.
Target conflicts at the Corona rehanging fund
Dilemmata interested in MPs and conflicts of goals at the Corona Reda-Association. Markus Koza (Greens) and Karin Greiner (SPÖ) called for the equal treatment of the Member States. “The EU is often accused of acting too slowly. This report shows how an instrument was set up in a short time,” said Harald Servus (ÖVP). The ARF was “new territory”, Markus Hofer (NEOS) went hand in hand. Now it is important to check what worked and what did not work to derive the right steps. Berger stated that Austria quickly picked up the first tranche of the funds, the removal of the second tranche was on the assessment of the European Commission.
Examination of EU financing for NGOs
The European Court of Auditors has also checked EU financing for non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These are not a homogeneous group, it could be a small organizations working at local level and large international NGOs that are represented in many countries, said Berger. It stated that the facilities are not always identified and registered as a NGOs uniformly and reliably. Sufficiently transparently have been disclosed on NGOS awarded EU funds, even if there have been improvements. The European Court of Auditors made three recommendations to the Commission, Berger told Markus Hofer (NEOS). These include the improvement of the guidelines for classification as a NGO, an improvement in information about the EU expenditure in the financial transparency system and the increased review of the respect of the EU.
Michael Fürtbauer (FPÖ) was interested in intentions to compensate for the definition of NGOs across the EU. The definition is not uniform within the European Commission, Berger said. Fürtbauer also spoke in favor of disclosing the financing of NGOs. The NGO report shows injustices in the system, said Harald Servus. While companies had numerous disclosure obligations, they did not exist at NGOs, he was a need for re -sharpening.
Reports on the deadline for the deadline are postponed
The Federal Finance Court (III-127 d.B.), The Spanish Riding School – Lipizzaner Stud Piber (III-128 d.B.), for the supervision of medical associations (III-129 d.B.), regarding the Innovation Foundation for Education (III-131 d.B.), to the Koralbahn project (III-134 d.B.) as well as the Austrian spatial planning conference (III-143 d.B.). (Conclusion Court Committee) GLA/WIT