What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Change 39

Changed:33.43. NotesCalls thaton the EU-Rail Joint Undertaking showedto address weaknesses in the use of the reinforced monitoring tool; agrees that the EU-Rail Joint Undertaking should ensure that all reinforced monitoring actions are accompanied by specific control actions targeting the identified risks, and that they are followed-up at pre-defined deadline;

Change 40

Changed:34.44. Notes that the EU-Rail Joint Undertaking would like to underline that the risk of errors in Horizon 2020 grant payments was highly mitigated by the use of lump-sums;

Change 41

Changed:35.45. Notes, in particular, that the EU-Rail JUJoint Undertaking ensured reasonable lump sums by using financial experts during the call evaluation procedures and carefully investigated and negotiated all cost items questioned by the financial experts during the grant agreement preparation phase, in accordance with Commission Decision C(2017) 7151 of 27 October 2017 on authorising the use of reimbursement on the basis of a lump sum for the eligible costs of actions under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme;

46. Notes, with satisfaction, that the Joint undertaking, while having embedded procedures for the ex-ante identification of high-risk factors for Horizon 2020 grant agreements, it recognises that these procedures could be better aligned with the Commission guidance on risk-based ex-ante controls;

Follow-up of previous years’ observations

Change 42

Changed:37.47. Notes that “observations”observations in the EU-Rail 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 43

Changed:38.48. Notes that, as regards the (two)two Court’s observations for 2021, one is still open-open, it concerned the low implementation rate for the JU’sEU-Rail Joint Undertaking’s 2021 operational payment budget available, including operational unused and reallocated appropriations (fell to 61 % (2020:(compared to 2020: 76 %));

49. Notes that this situation was mainly caused by the poor quality of the beneficiaries’ technical reports and the need of additional evidence confirming the achievement of the project results and the fact that the delay of a single beneficiary affects the payment of the whole lump-sum amount;

Change 44

Changed:40.50. Appreciates that, in 2022, the JUEU-Rail Joint Undertaking developed an action plan to improve the beneficiaries’ financial reporting, which is important in particular for reimbursements on the basis of a lump-sum for the eligible costs of actions where the delay of a single beneficiary affects the payment of the whole lump-sum amount.