What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Change 23

Changed:31.32. Appreciates that the Clean H2 Joint Undertaking developed a risk-based approach to ex-post audit with the aim to reduce its error rate by better targeted sample to detect the most error-prone beneficiaries and thus, strengthening the cleaning effect of their ex-post audits; considers this an important positive change in ex-post audit approach as the Commission internal control framework for Horizon Europe grants does not allow for establishing Joint Undertaking’s specific representative samples and, consequently, to calculate specific representative and residual error rates for Joint Undertakings;

Change 24

Changed:32.33. Notes that the Court found that the Clean H2 Joint Undertaking with a well-developed risk-based ex-post audit approach have a residual error rate below the average of the JUsClean H2 Joint Undertaking without such an approach due to the systematic identification and audit of the riskiest beneficiaries;

Follow-up of previous years’ observations

Change 25

Changed:33.34. Notes that “observations” in the Clean H2 Joint UndertakingsUndertaking’s specific annual reports are in fact “not timed recommendations” by the Court; notes that ECA annually follows-up on those observations by assessing their status as “open” or “closed”;

Change 26

Changed:34.35. Notes that, for the Clean H2,H2 Joint Undertaking all previous years’ observations were closed because of the Clean H2 Joint Undertakings’ corrective actions taken during 2022.