11. Recalls the procedure laid down in Point 23 of the IIA of 17 May 2006; recalls, nevertheless, that there have already been several changes reducing the margins available and that it is therefore difficult to finance new measures without fresh money; favours finding long-term solutions which would make the EU budget sufficient to meet all needs instead of shifting appropriations between headings; underlines that margins available under each heading of the MFF (especially Heading 2) cannot be taken for granted, due to changing economic conditions; considers it more appropriate to address directly the category of expenditure that is insufficient in order to avoid hindering other areas of expenditure; considers that in the absence of f ...[+++]lexibility within and across headings, a revision of the MFF reflects most budgetary principles; regrets that in the current context, the Council has not taken a constructive approach for using the existing flexibility mechanisms; considers that the mid-term review of the MFF should also address the chronic under-funding of certain categories of expenditure;

11. Recalls the procedure laid down in Point 23 of the IIA of 17 May 2006; recalls, nevertheless, that there have already been several changes reducing the margins available and that it is therefore difficult to finance new measures without fresh money; favours finding long-term solutions which would make the EU budget sufficient to meet all needs instead of shifting appropriations between headings; underlines that margins available under each heading of the MFF (especially Heading 2) cannot be taken for granted, due to changing economic conditions; considers it more appropriate to address directly the category of expenditure that is insufficient in order to avoid hindering other areas of expenditure; considers that in the absence of f ...[+++]lexibility within and across headings, a revision of the MFF reflects most budgetary principles; regrets that in the current context, the Council has not taken a constructive approach for using the existing flexibility mechanisms; considers that the mid-term review of the MFF should also address the chronic under-funding of certain categories of expenditure;

Summary table (see point 9) indicating the eligible expenditure declared to the Commission during the calendar (reference) year (ending in the audit period), the amount of expenditure audited, and the percentage of expenditure audited in relation to total eligible expenditure declared to the Commission (both for the last calendar year and cumulatively).

1. A grant shall not exceed 70 % of the applicant's average audited annual eligible expenses during the preceding two years, in the case of NGOs based in the Community, or 80 % in the case of NGOs based in the candidate countries and the Balkan countries, nor 80 % of the applicant's eligible expenses for the current year.

4. Moreover, if the audited financial statement of the grant year shows that the total revenues of the beneficiary, save revenues regularly earmarked for ineligible expenses, exceed the eligible expenses, the final payment shall be reduced or, if necessary, the excess amount shall be recovered accordingly.

In Category 1 on agriculture and market expenditure, we are already up to the limit of the margin. In Category 4 on external action – I shall return to this point – the Category is literally at bursting point. In Category 5, we do not know what the administrative reform of the Commission will cost, but it is with great concern that we see the problem of pensions taking shape before suitable expenditure has been envisaged; and in Category 7, intended for pre-accession preparations, the movement developing in favour of faster and wider enlargement, if I may say, is not supported by suitable appropriations.