Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1248/2006 of 7 August 2006 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1248/2006of 7 August 2006amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European CommunitiesTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European CommunitiesOJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1., and in particular Article 183 thereof,Having consulted the European Parliament, the Council, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor,Whereas:(1)The obligation for the Commission to inform the budgetary authority by 15 April of the cancellation of carried over appropriations which have not been committed by 31 March has proven to be too strict and it should therefore be extended by two weeks to 30 April.(2)It should be specified that where the system of provisional twelfths is to be applied, the total allotted appropriations of the previous financial year are to be understood as referring to appropriations for the financial year after adjustment for any transfers made during that financial year.(3)It should be made clear that the rules on the rate of conversion between the euro and another currency set out in Articles 7 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1261/2005 (OJ L 201, 2.8.2005, p. 3). apply only to conversions carried out by authorising officers and not to those carried out by contractors or beneficiaries, on the basis of the specific rules agreed in contracts or grant agreements. For reasons of efficiency, the Commission's accounting officer should be authorised to establish the monthly accounting exchange rate of the euro to be used for accounts purposes. In addition, for reasons of transparency and equal treatment of Community officials, a specific rule on conversion rates should be established for staff expenditure paid in a currency other than the euro.(4)As regards the principle of sound financial management, the content of the ex ante evaluation should be clarified and the scope of the ex ante, interim or ex post evaluation should be better targeted, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. The priorities of evaluation should thus be redirected in order to focus on proposals with an impact on business and/or citizens and to cover pilot projects and preparatory actions to be continued. In addition, complementarity should be ensured when projects or actions are already subject to evaluation (for example, tasks shared between the Commission and Member States).(5)For the purpose of ex ante verification for the authorisation of expenditure, a series of similar individual transactions relating to routine staff expenditure on salaries, pensions, reimbursement of mission expenses and medical expenses may be considered by the authorising office responsible to constitute a single operation. In that case, the authorising officer responsible, in accordance with his risk assessment, should carry out appropriate ex post verification.(6)It is appropriate to include in the report on negotiated procedures only the cases of the use of negotiated procedures which constitute exceptions to the normal procurement procedures.(7)Following the introduction of accrual accounting on 1 January 2005, and the availability of accounting data at any moment in the informatics system, it is more logical and quicker to draw up the trial balance on the day on which the accounting officer terminates his duty. If he terminates his duty on 31 December, the trial balance could be prepared the same day without waiting for the provisional accounts to be finalised.(8)In order to render effective the accounting officer's responsibility for treasury management, he should be authorised to communicate to financial institutions with which he has opened accounts the names and specimen signatures of the officials authorised to sign banking operations.(9)The maximum amount which can be paid by the imprest administrator should be increased from EUR 30000 to EUR 60000 when payments by budgetary procedures are materially impossible or less effective.(10)In the light of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities, the authorising officer by delegation or sub-delegation should, in the case of confirmation of instruction, be allowed not to carry out the instruction if it is manifestly illegal.(11)Given the complementary roles of the authorising officers and the accounting officer in the process of recovery by offsetting, providing for consultation between them before offsetting is justified.(12)When the debtor is a national authority or one of its administrative entities, in order to take account of the procedures existing at national levels, the accounting officer should inform the Member States concerned at least 10 working days in advance of his intention to resort to recovery by offsetting. However, in agreement with the Member State or administrative entity concerned, the accounting officer should be able to proceed with the recovery by offsetting before that deadline.(13)Where the debt is paid before the deadline no default interest will be due (period of grace) and recovery by offsetting before that deadline should be limited to cases where the accounting officer has justified reasons for considering the financial interests of the Communities to be at stake.(14)In order to protect the financial interests of the Communities, bank guarantees that secure a Community claim pending appeal against a fine should be completely independent of the obligation laid down in the contract.(15)The content of the financing decision should be further specified. For grants and procurement, the notion of "essential elements" of an action involving expenditure from the budget should be defined in more detail. Moreover, it should be made clear that the work programme referred to in Article 110 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, hereinafter "the Financial Regulation", may constitute a financing decision provided that it contains a sufficiently detailed framework.(16)Where a global budgetary commitment is made, any authorising officer — not only the authorising officer by delegation — may be responsible for the legal commitments implementing the global commitment.(17)The payment time-limits for contracts and grant agreements which depend on the approval of a report or certificate should be revised in order to make certain that payments are made on the basis of an approved report or certificate. Moreover, the time-limit for approval of a report related to a grant agreement involving actions which are particularly complex to evaluate should be brought into line with the current time-limit for complex service contracts.(18)Without modifying the existing time-limits or affecting the beneficiaries’ rights, the authorising officer responsible should also, for simplification reasons, be able to decide that approval of the report or certificate and payment can be made within a single time-limit.(19)The thresholds for low-value contracts, fixed in 1994, should be updated and raised from EUR 50000 to EUR 60000 and from EUR 13800 to EUR 25000 respectively. Moreover, it should be specified that all contracts with a value equal to or less than EUR 60000 may be awarded after a negotiated procedure.(20)In addition, the implementing rules should define more precisely the procedure to be followed for certain research and development service contracts and certain service contracts intended for broadcasting which are excluded from the scope of the Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public work contracts, public supply contracts and public service contractsOJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114. Directive as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 (OJ L 333, 20.12.2005, p. 28).. In the light of the principle of transparency, those contracts may be awarded following a negotiated procedure after publication of a tender notice.(21)With a view to further simplifying the management of the procurement procedures, economic operators should be able to participate in a procedure on the basis of a declaration on their honour stating that they are not in one of the situations giving grounds for exclusion from that procurement procedure, except in the case of restricted procedures, competitive dialogue and negotiated procedures after publication of a contract notice whenever the contracting authority limits the number of candidates to be invited to negotiate or submit a tender. However, in line with the principles of Directive 2004/18/EC and in order better to protect the financial interests of the Communities, for contracts covered by Directive 2004/18/EC and high value contracts in the external field, the economic operator to whom the contract is to be awarded should nevertheless have to provide evidence confirming the initial declaration. Whenever a candidate or tenderer is required to provide evidence, the contracting authority should also consider evidence provided by that candidate or tenderer in another procurement procedure launched by the same contracting authority, provided that the evidence is not more than one year old starting from its issuing date and that it is still valid.(22)In external actions, the competitive negotiated procedure should be rendered more efficient and the negotiated procedure should be allowed in the event of two failures of a competitive negotiated procedure and in the event of one failure when the competitive negotiated procedure follows the unsuccessful use of a framework contract. The option of not requiring proof of technical and economic capacity should be allowed up to the thresholds appropriate in that specific policy area for each type of contract. In that case also, the authorising officer responsible should be able to justify his choice. The evaluation committee or the contracting authority should have the option of asking candidates or tenderers to supply additional documents or clarify information, as provided for in the case of contracts awarded by the institutions on their own account.(23)In external actions, the legal framework for the procurement should also be simplified as regards the publication of the pre-information notice for international calls for tenders and the requirement for a performance guarantee. The pre-information notice should be published as early as possible and not necessarily before 31 January. Moreover, the performance guarantee should be required only in the event of procurement with a high value and the authorising officer responsible should have the option of waiving the requirement for a guarantee in the case of pre-financing to a public body, depending on his risk assessment.(24)With regard to the award of grants, in order to reduce the administrative burden, it should be accepted that the de jure or de facto monopoly of the beneficiary can be substantiated in the award decision.(25)The requirement to attach an external audit to the application should apply only to applications for grants with a value equal to or more than EUR 500000 for actions and to operating grants with a value equal to or more than EUR 100000.(26)Co-financing in kind by beneficiaries should be made easier, if appropriate or necessary, and the notion of bodies which pursue an aim of European general interest and which may receive operating grants should include European bodies involved in promoting citizenship or innovation.(27)Applicants should be informed as soon as possible of the rejection of their application.(28)In the case of operating grants to bodies which pursue an aim of general European interest, the implementation of the non-profit rule should be limited to the percentage of co-financing corresponding to the Community’s contribution to the operating budget in order to take account of the rights of the other public contributors which are also required to recover the percentage of annual profit corresponding to their contribution. For the purpose of calculating the amount to be recovered, the percentage of the contributions in kind to the operating budget should not be taken into account.(29)In order to protect the Communities’ financial interests, the requirement of guarantees for pre-financing should apply to any pre-financing exceeding 80 % of the amount of the grant and EUR 60000.(30)Where pre-financing is split, where the consumption of any earlier pre-financing is less than 70 %, a new pre-financing should be possible but the amount of the new payment should be reduced by the unused amounts of the previous payment.(31)It should be specified that in the case of public bodies, external audit or certification to be attached to grant applications or requests for payments, may be carried out by a competent and independent public officer.(32)Following the adoption by the Commission's accounting officer in December 2004, pursuant to Article 133 of the Financial Regulation, of the accounting rules and methods and the harmonised chart of accounts, the Title on presentation of the accounts and accounting should be updated by deleting provisions which are no longer necessary.(33)In order to take account of Decision 2005/118/EC of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman of 26 January 2005 setting up a European Administrative SchoolOJ L 37, 10.2.2005, p. 14., the list of European offices should be adjusted to reflect that the European Administrative School is presently attached administratively to the European Communities Personnel Selection Office.(34)Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: