Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2022)223 - Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2022)223 - Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast). |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2022)223  |
| date | 16-05-2022 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The Financial Regulation 1 lays down the principles and general financial rules for establishing and implementing the EU budget and controlling EU finances. The 2018 Financial Regulation is the result of a major revision, incorporating the previous Rules of Application into a single rulebook. The revision increased flexibility, simplified financial rules considerably and paved the way for the proposals under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). These simpler rules need time to harness their full potential for the implementation of the 2021-2027 programmes and instruments, for example on the single audit approach, cross-reliance on audits and assessments, simplified cost options, reduced administrative burden, and the focus on results. Changing financial rules too often creates uncertainty for recipients of EU funds.
Therefore, the Commission is now proposing a targeted amendment, aiming to strike the right balance by focusing on changes that are really necessary. The main reason for this revision is the need to align the Financial Regulation with the MFF package, to maintain a single rulebook governing the expenditure of the Union, meaning that all general financial rules are included in the Financial Regulation. This will provide greater legal certainty for Union institutions and recipients of Union funds. The proposal also reflects declarations made by the EU institutions in the context of the MFF.
In addition, the proposal includes targeted improvements and simplifications. These have been identified since the entry into force of the 2018 Financial Regulation and some of them respond to recent events and trends. Improvements build on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and focus on crisis management. They also aim to better protect EU financial interests (for example by making more use of digitalisation), better contribute to the achievement of the EU policy objectives and to achieve additional simplification for recipients of Union funds.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This proposal comes after the adoption of the MFF package, to further improve the rules to be used in the implementation of the 2021-2027 programmes and instruments, and beyond.
The proposal reflects certain derogations to the current Financial Regulation that the Union legislator decided during the MFF negotiations, notably on sectoral legislation. Simplifying and improving EU financial rules should also increase the policies’ impact and their results on the ground.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposal is based on Article 322 i of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The adoption of EU general financial rules falls under the exclusive competence of the EU.
• Proportionality
This proposal aligns the Financial Regulation with the 2021-2027 MFF package and includes targeted improvements and simplifications. It does not contain rules that would not be necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Stakeholder consultations
A public consultation on the proposed amendment of the Financial Regulation was held from July to October 2021, receiving 38 contributions. The contributions came from a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public, Member State authorities, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and business associations.
On strengthening the protection of the Union financial interests, most respondents would support additional transparency and protection measures. They considered flexibility and proportionality to be necessary, and saw confidentiality, data protection and consistent use of existing tools as important. Participants generally welcomed possible improvements of the early-detection and exclusion system (EDES). There was general support for the Commission to perform appropriate due diligence to ensure that entrusted entities comply with applicable Union law and agreed international and Union standards. Finally, stakeholders wanted to strengthen the Financial Regulation’s role in preventing conflicting professional interests of candidates or tenderers. However, internal guidelines to EU staff could also play a role in this.
The participants in the public consultation agreed on the importance of simplifying and clarifying certain rules on programme implementation to reduce administrative burden. Stakeholders welcomed measures for the following topics: (i) EU security and strategic autonomy; (ii) financial instruments, budgetary guarantees and financial assistance, where there is clear support for streamlining reporting obligations; and (iii) digital controls and audits, where stakeholders acknowledged that human oversight should be maintained.
On crisis management, participants in the consultation encouraged the approach of building on lessons learned from the COVID-19 crisis to improve procurement rules. Stakeholders elaborated on possible changes, for example additional flexibility to conclude contract amendments, the acceptance of electronic documents, and facilitating support to global initiatives and programmes.
The Commission has carefully considered this feedback and reflected most of it in the draft proposal.
• Impact assessment
In line with the Commission’s statement on future revisions of the Financial Regulation 2 , no impact assessment is required. The Financial Regulation provides the general rules and the toolbox for the implementation of EU spending programmes and instruments. Therefore, revisions of the legislation do not have any direct economic, environmental or social impacts which could effectively be analysed in an impact assessment. The value added of impact assessments comes when making policy choices on specific spending programmes and instruments, which have to comply with the regulatory framework provided by the Financial Regulation. Instead, the Commission has carried out a public consultation for this proposal, which is common practice. The Commission has also build on the operational experience and lessons learned, in particular to identify and analyse the issues to be addressed and the added value of Union involvement.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The revision of the Financial Regulation does not fall under the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT). However, by responding to the need to simplify, improve and align EU financial rules with the 2021-2027 MFF package, the revision contributes significantly to the better regulation agenda. The proposed approach is fully in line with the better regulation framework and the Commission’s work on simplification.
For example, the proposal includes a reference to digital audits and emerging technologies to encourage their wider use, while keeping flexibility. The proposal also includes lessons learned from COVID-19 on procurement (e.g. joint procurement, procurement on behalf of the Member States, use of a central purchasing body, multiple sourcing for the same type of goods or services, electronic invoicing and better rules on external experts). It also contains simplification measures for grants (e.g. simplified forms of grants, simpler rules for use of volunteers, simpler calculation to show compliance with the no-profit principle, and simpler process for granting humanitarian aid). The ultimate goal of all these measures is to reduce the administrative burden for applicants and recipients of EU funds, without creating additional risks for the sound financial management of the EU budget.
The proposal does not exempt micro-enterprises from its scope. Such enterprises can be beneficiaries of EU funds and must therefore be subject to the general financial rules. The rules for the 2021‑2027 funding period already make it easier for micro-enterprises to participate. For example, the Commission recently used the Financial Regulation’s rules on simplified forms of funding to adopt a decision allowing owners of micro-enterprises to declare their staff costs as predefined unit costs under any funding programme, without need to provide evidence for the rates declared. Moreover, in certain areas, the proposal reduces costs for businesses, which are often micro-, small and medium‑sized enterprises (MSMEs). The proposal aims to strengthen the implementation of the principle of proportionality by inter alia relying on the due diligence of partners implementing the budget under indirect management. This would enable a more flexible approach to MSMEs. More generally, many of the targeted simplification measures should benefit all enterprises and thus also small to medium-sized enterprises.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal does not have budgetary implications.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Contents
·Alignment with the MFF (general): some references to the basic acts of 2021-2027 and other legislation are added to the Financial Regulation. In addition, to ensure smooth implementation of the MFF Regulation 3 , certain derogations from the budgetary principles set out in the sectoral basic acts are proposed to be reflected in the Financial Regulation in line with the single rulebook approach (Articles 12, 14, 15 and 18, Article 32 i, Article 41 i, Article 44 i and i, Article 48 i, Article 54, Article 96 i and i, Article 97 i, Article 106 i, Article 115 i, Article 214 i, Article 250(1)(b) and Article 253(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation). Moreover, to follow up on the joint declaration on the potential inclusion of the content of the General Conditionality Regulation 4 , a reference to this Regulation is added under Title II on the principles from which sectoral legislation cannot derogate (Article 6).
·Borrowing and lending: the proposal aims to enhance reporting in line with the joint declaration 2020/C 444 I/06 5 , in order to increase transparency and facilitate cooperation with the budgetary authority. The proposed amendment streamlines the reporting obligations for borrowing and lending operations. It codifies the current practice by including in the document annexed to the section of the budget relating to the Commission a comprehensive overview of the Commission’s borrowing and lending operations (Article 52(1)).
·Assigned revenue: the proposal aims to increase the transparency and visibility of external assigned revenue in the documents accompanying the budget, in line with the joint declaration (Article 22 i and Article 41 i and (8)). It also aims to facilitate the management of additional contributions (including voluntary ones) from Member States (Article 21(2)), thus avoiding the need to request payments from Member States before actual payment needs arise.
·Financial instruments and budgetary guarantees: the proposal aims to enhancing legal clarity by: (i) addressing inconsistencies and redundancies in the current Financial Regulation; (ii) better reflecting the functioning of provisioning and of budgetary guarantees; and (iii) updating relevant rules (Article 2 i, new Article 2(15), new Article 2(33), new Article 212 i, Article 212 i, Article 213 i, Article 221 and Article 223 i, and new Article 213(5)).
·In addition, the proposal streamlines reporting to avoid duplications and inconsistencies. It strengthens reporting obligations in a working document attached to the draft budget and the integrated financial report under Article 253 i. This streamlining also means that current Article 250 must be deleted. Finally, the proposal strengthens Article 218 by moving certain provisions of former Article 41 i to Article 218. This move makes sure that it is not necessary to prepare two parallel reports on the common provisioning fund with similar content (new Article 41(5)(g), Article 210 i and Article 218).
·The proposal also clarifies how the provisioning and budgetary guarantees interact with the definitions and rules on budgetary commitments, legal commitments, recipients and publication of information on recipients (Article 2(38) and (58), Article 7 i, Article 10 i, Article 38(3)(c), Article 112 i, Article 113(1)(a), Article 113 i, Article 115 i and Article 163).
·Non-financial donations by EU institutions: the proposal includes a new instrument reflecting current practice. It will provide a framework for the EU institutions to donate goods, services, supplies or works. It will also provide a stable legal basis in particular for future emergency situations, more transparency, accountability and legal certainty for recipients (Article 2 i, i, i, (38), (50) and (58), Article 133, Article 154 i and new Article 244).
·Prizes: similar to the introduction of non-financial donations, the EU institutions should also be able to award prizes which are not financial, such as vouchers, tickets and trips. This is also important for example in order to allow contests among young people who do not have a bank account in their Member State, but who can easily receive their reward in a practical form. The introduction of this possibility requires small modifications in Articles 2(52), 210 i and 211 i.
·Procurement and experts: the proposal adapts the procurement rules that apply in crisis management situations to enable EU institutions or bodies to procure on behalf of Member States or to act as a central purchasing body. This central purchasing body would be able to donate or resell supplies and services to Member States, and launch joint procurement procedures, although the EU institutions would not be acquiring services and supplies for themselves (Article 169 i and i, new Article 169 i, and point 11.1(f) and point 12.2(a) of Annex I). The proposal also updates the definition of crisis to include public and animal health, food safety emergency situations and global health threats such as pandemics (Article 2(22)).
Other simplification measures and technical corrections and updates enable multi-sourcing contracts, correct inconsistencies and omissions, and clarify digitisation of procurement procedures (new Article 2(46), Article 2(76), Article 164 i, Article 168 i, Article 171 i, Article 173 i, Article 174 i and i, Article 175, and point 1.2, point 6.2, point 6.3, point 6.4, point 6.6, point 9.3, point 9.4, point 9.5, point 11.1(a) and (c), point 11.1(h)(iv), point 11.1(j) and (m), point 11.2, point 16.3(f) and (g), point 18.1, point 18.7, point 19.2, point 20.2, point 21.1, point 24.3, point 27, point 28.1, point 28.2, new point 29.4, point 30.2, point 31.1, new point 34, point 35.1 and point 39.3 of Annex I).
The proposals further align the procurement rules of the Financial Regulation with Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and Directive 2014/55/EU on electronic invoicing. For example, the proposal clarifies time limits that apply to dynamic purchasing systems, and includes the possibility to assess – as award criteria – qualifications and experience of staff assigned to perform the contract (Article 117 i, Article 176 i, new Article 176 i and i, and Article 179(1)).
The proposal also responds to the need for more flexible rules for Union delegations in third countries, factoring in local market conditions and practices of Member States. Therefore, the threshold for and the rules on market access are aligned with those that currently apply to external action procurement. In addition, Union delegations that award contracts on their own account would be allowed to accept, for example, submission of application documents by hand delivery (Article 153(5)).
It is also proposed to apply the measures taken under the International Procurement Instrument 6 (IPI, not yet adopted) to EU institutions’ procurement. Contracting authorities will have to apply IPI measures (in a form of score adjustment to bids received from or an exclusion of economic operators established in certain third countries) in the same manner as contracting authorities and contracting entities of Member States once the IPI Regulation enters into force and IPI measures are adopted and published in the Official Journal – the EU institutions should lead by example and apply the same rules (Article 179 i, new , and point 14 of Annex I).
The proposal responds to the need for simplification of procurement procedures for buildings. Furthermore, the proposal excludes from the scope of the procurement rules of this Regulation the authentication services provided by notaries, includes the possibility of having negotiated procedures without prior publication for services provided by Member State organisations and extends the scope for the use of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice following an unsuccessful competitive procedure with negotiation (Article 164 and point 6 of the Annex I).
Under current case-law 7 , tenderers have to provide evidence of the selection and exclusion criteria they have used before they take a decision to award a tender. The proposal ensures that the Financial Regulation is aligned with case-law on this (Article 2(51) and point 18.4 of Annex I).
The recitals highlight current rules on green public procurement.
Finally, the proposal makes rules for experts more comprehensive and aligns them with market reality. This would enable Union institutions to compete with remunerations offered by other players on the market when contracting remunerated external experts. New rules would also enable the Commission to use lists of experts for a longer time (Article 242).
·Grants: the proposal includes technical updates, simplification, clarifications and corrections. It clarifies rules on simplified forms of grants (Article 184 i and Article 187) and lays down that the 50% limit for volunteers’ costs applies to the total financing of an action (Article 194(2)).
Moreover, the proposal clarifies that an adversarial procedure is not systematically required to reject a participant from an award procedure (Article 135).
The proposal also simplifies calculations under the no-profit principle (Article 196(4)) and the provision of financial support to third parties for special cases (Article 208, third subparagraph).
To increase transparency, a definition of NGOs is added, while grant applicants would need to declare their legal status and confirm whether they are NGOs (new Article 2(46) and Article 200(1)(a)).
Finally, the definition and use of ‘public contracts’ under Title VIII are corrected (Article 2(16) and Article 205 i and (2)).
·Donations to the EU institutions: the proposal allows deciding faster whether to accept or reject donations when a rapid reaction is needed, in exceptional circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, where such donations are made for the purposes of humanitarian aid, emergency support, civil protection or crisis management aid (Article 25(3)).
·Digitalisation: the proposal supports the Commission’s commitment to be digital by default. It increases the efficiency and quality of controls and audits with the help of digitalisation and emerging technologies such as data-mining, machine learning, robotic process automation and artificial intelligence. Giving these aspects more visibility should lead to wider and more consistent use of digital audits and controls. This, in turn, should increase the level of assurance, while decreasing the cost of audits and controls (Article 36, Article 63(4)(a), Article 74 i and i, Article 150(1)).
The proposal also aims to improve the quality and interoperability of data on recipients of Union funding for controls and audits, including through the use of a single integrated IT system for data-mining and risk-scoring (further details under point 3 below).
Certain rules and procedures on procurement and experts should be amended to reflect progress on digitalisation.
·Green transition: this proposal also aims to adjust the Financial Regulation to ensure that budget implementation effectively helps achieve the European Green Deal. To this end, an explicit reference to the do-no-significant-harm principle should be inserted in Article 33 i, in line with the Commission’s commitment to sustainable financing and the green transition.
Furthermore, to facilitate the greening of EU buildings, the possibility to use loans to finance building renovation is inserted in Article 271.
Finally, when relevant, calls for tenders in public procurement procedures should include green award or selection criteria to incentivise economic operators to offer more sustainable options.
In line with Article 6 i of the Climate Law, the Commission considers that the proposals above are consistent with the climate-neutrality objective set out in Article 2 i of the Climate law, as well as the Union 2030 and 2040 climate targets. These proposals are also consistent with ensuring progress on adaptation, as referred to in Article 5 of the Climate Law, and aligned with the objectives of the Climate law.
1.3.Enhanced protection of the EU’s financial interests and indirect management
·Early-detection and exclusion system: it is proposed to strengthen the system by better targeting its application to funds under both shared management and direct management where funds are disbursed as financial contributions to Member States, for instance under the Recovery and Resilience Facility 8 . The objective is to prevent Member State authorities from selecting fraudulent economic operators to carry out projects, and to better protect the Union budget against serious misconduct without waiting for the final outcome of national procedures. On the cross-territorial dimension of the implementation of projects, it is proposed that exclusion of entities and persons at Union level applies to all Union funding for project implementation across all Member States. Such exclusion would be subject to several limitations and safeguards. Its scope would be limited to an exhaustive list of the most serious forms of misconduct (e.g. corruption, fraud, money laundering and terrorism) found in: (i) a final Union audit, a report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) or an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); or (ii) a national audit, judgment or administrative decision (Article 138 i, Article 139 i and Article 145(5)).
In addition to the above, autonomous grounds for exclusion are added, based on the refusal to cooperate in investigations, checks or audits carried out by an authorising officer, OLAF, EPPO or the Court of Auditors and on the incitement to hatred or discrimination (new Article 139(1)(i) and 139(1)(c)(vi), respectively). It is also proposed to explicitly mention the breach of conflict of interest as an autonomous ground of exclusion within the notion of grave professional misconduct (Article 139(1)(c)(iv)). An expedited procedure is proposed for cases whosenature or circumstances require it (new Article 139(6)). The proposal also includes the possibility to exclude beneficial owners and affiliated entities if the requirements to attribute liability are considered fulfilled (new Article 138(2)(h) and (i), Article 139 i and new Article 139(5)). Other amendments address current shortcomings in the system, for example by creating a legal presumption of notification of the content of adversarial letters and administrative decisions (new Article 138(2)(g), Article 139 i, Article 139(1)(d)(i), Article 139(1)(e), Article 139 i, Article 140 i, Article 143, Article 145 i, Article 146 i, new Article 147, new Article 152 i, Article 152(2)(h), Article 153 and new Article 156(6)).
·Single integrated IT system for data-mining and risk-scoring: the proposal aims to improve the quality and interoperability of data on recipients of Union funding and on those ultimately benefitting, directly or indirectly, from Union funding. To effectively prevent, detect, investigate and correct frauds or remedy irregularities, it is necessary to be able to identify the natural persons who are the beneficial owners of the recipients and who ultimately profit from the misuse of Union funding. This is achieved by standardising the electronic recording and storage of data on the recipients of Union funding and their beneficial owners for control and audit purposes. Moreover, there would be an obligation to use a single integrated IT system for data-mining and risk-scoring (provided by the Commission) to access and analyse those data on the recipients of Union funding. This system would considerably facilitate the identification of risks of fraud, corruption, double funding, conflict of interest and other irregularities. The Commission would be responsible for the development, management and supervision of the single integrated IT system for data‑mining and risk-scoring (Articles 36, 159 and 275). The rules on the recording, storage, transfer and processing of data should comply with applicable data protection rules. Finally, the proposal applies Article 36 to cases where Member States receive and implement Union funding under direct management. The above obligations would apply to programmes adopted under and financed from the post-2027 MFF to allow enough time to adapt electronic data systems and to provide guidance and training. During the transition period, voluntary application will remain possible and will be encouraged. This proposal plays a key role in the actions for digitalisation explained in point 2 above.
·Transparency: the proposal aims to improve the information provided to the public on the use of the Union budget and on recipients of Union funding. This is achieved by requiring Member States implementing the Union budget under shared management, entities implementing the Union budget under indirect management, and other Union institutions and bodies to send information to the Commission on their recipients of Union funding at least once a year. The Commission would add to the above information the data it has on direct management and would be responsible for consolidating, centralising and publishing the information in a database on a single website, covering all methods of Union budget implementation, including by other Union institutions and bodies. The resulting single website would be an improved version of the Financial Transparency System currently in use for direct management (Articles 38, 159 and 275). Finally, the proposal applies Article 38 to cases where Member States receive and implement Union funding under direct management. The above obligations would apply to programmes adopted under and financed from the post-2027 MFF, to ensure a smooth transition and adapt electronic data systems.
·Indirect management: indirect management relies on the rules, systems and procedures of Union implementing partners to provide adequate protection of the EU’s financial interests. The proposal aims to strengthen the application of proportionality as a general principle of law, notably when assessing partners and imposing contractual obligations. This would improve cooperation with Union implementing partners. It is also consistent with the rules recently agreed under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument. Unnecessary administrative burden should be avoided, in particular for final recipients that are MSMEs or comparable economic operators with equivalent turnover or balance sheet total. Relevant provisions need to be adjusted, and cross-references need to be updated. As a simplification, the proposal provides for the option to exempt managing authorities under shared management from pillar assessment, as their rules are already assessed under shared management. The current possibility for decentralised agencies to be exempted from pillar assessment would become an exemption by default and would be extended to fully self-financed agencies and CFSP missions. Finally, rules on transparency for recipients of EU funding are changed and technical clarifications are added (Article 62 i, Articles 158 and 159, Article 160 i, new Article 212 i and Article 212(4)).
·Union award procedures concerning security or public order: this proposal aims to lay down specific conditions for the participation of third country entities in Union award procedures that concern security or public order. It also aims to apply these conditions in line with the international obligations of the Union, in particular in the area of public procurement. These rules concern award procedures for all kinds of budget implementation instruments: grants, procurement, prizes, indirect management, etc. (new Article 137).
·Conflict of interest: this proposal includes a clarification of the notion of applicable law, which includes national law on conflict of interest (Article 61).
·Professional conflicting interests that may negatively affect performance of a procurement contract. Following up on the European Ombudsman’s investigation into the award of a contract 9 , it is proposed to add a definition and an explicit ground for rejecting participants from award procedures for such reasons (Article 144). In addition, all tenderers must submit a declaration on honour confirming that they do not have any professional conflicting interests, and provide relevant information when required (point 18.4 of Annex I). Finally, the proposal highlights the contracting authority’s obligation to assess whether there are such interests (point 20.1 of Annex I).
·Member States’ assistance in the recovery of EU claims must be ensured by extending the assistance mechanism already applied between Member States under Directive 2010/24/EU concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures to also cover the Commission. In order to recover EU claims more effectively, the Commission’s accounting officer must be able to rely on Member States’ assistance to effectively notify debtors and identify debtors’ assets (new Article 104).
·Foreign subsidies: the Commission proposal for a regulation on foreign subsidies 10 is currently being negotiated. Depending on how the proposals progress, the Financial Regulation may be aligned to that new regulation in the course of the negotiations.
The following technical changes and updates to the Financial Regulation are proposed:
·addressing omissions and wrong cross-references in Article 49 i, Article 71, Article 114 i, Article 154 i, Article 163 i and Article 253(1)(d) and (f);
·completing the list of working documents in Article 41(3)(e) by a document on building policy;
·amending Article 41(4)(j) to reflect the International Public Sector Accounting Standards;
·adjusting specific commitment rules for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund in Article 114 to facilitate better alignment with standard accounting practices.This technical change also affects the specific rules for payments made in advance under Article 270 but has no impact on payments to Member States or to beneficiaries;
·inserting technical updates in Article 252 on advanced deadlines for consolidated accounts, and changing the dates for document submission in Article 271;
·updating references to repealed Union legislation.
The following other necessary changes to the Financial Regulation are proposed:
·ensuring an appropriate budgetary treatment and avoiding undue financial strain on the expenditure side of the Union budget, making it possible to deduct interests, and any other charge due where a fine, other penalty or sanction has been cancelled or the amount has been reduced, including any negative return related to such fines, other penalties or sanctions from the revenue side of the Union budget (negative revenue), while also ensuring an adequate compensation in the event of the reimbursement of provisionally paid fines (Article 48 i and new Article 48 i, Article 99 i, Article 108 i, Article 109 i, Article 109 i and Article 109(4)). These changes integrate those already proposed by the Commission, on account of the urgency of the matter, in the stand-alone Commission proposal on the Financial Regulation amendment concerning the treatment of cancelled or reduced competition fines 11 ;
·simplifying the rules on imprest accounts to address issues encountered by EU delegations (Articles 88 and 89) and on treasury management, notably the use of credit cards and modern payment methods (Article 86).
2018/1046 (adapted)