REPORT on the nomination of Nikolaos Milionis as a Member of the Court of Auditors

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

on the nomination of Nikolaos Milionis as a Member of the Court of Auditors

(C10-0210/2025 - 2025/0807(NLE))

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C10-0210/2025),

- having regard to Rule 133 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A10-0218/2025),

A. whereas, by letter of 17 September 2025, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Nikolaos Milionis as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B. whereas Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate Nikolaos Milionis's credentials, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; whereas in carrying out that evaluation, the committee received a curriculum vitae from Nikolaos Milionis, as well as the replies to the written questionnaire that he had been sent;

C. whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with Nikolaos Milionis on 5 November 2025, at which he made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council's nomination of Nikolaos Milionis as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, to the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITÆ OF NIKOLAOS MILIONIS

Nikolaos MILIONIS

Born in OMISSIS

Education:

1981 First Degree in Law (University of Athens)

1982 - 1984 Military Service

1984 - 1986 Practice of law, specialising in social security law

1987 - 1989 Hellenic National School of Public Administration

1993 Diploma of Further Studies in Public Law (University of Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne)

1994 Diploma of Further Studies in Public Finance and Accounting (University of Paris VIII)

1998 PhD thesis in Public Finance Law (University of Athens) entitled "The Institutional Role of the Hellenic Court of Audit"

Professional experience:

1989 - 1997 Court of First Instance Judge (Auditor) at the Hellenic Court of Audit

1993 - 1994 Work experience at the French Cour des Comptes

1995 - 1996 Attaché to the Greek Member of the European Court of Auditors

1997 - 2004 Appellate Judge (Conseiller Référendaire) of the Hellenic Court of Audit

2004 - 2014 Councillor (Conseiller-Maître) of the Hellenic Court of Audit

2011 - 2012 Section President of the Hellenic Court of Audit

2014 -2022 Vice-President of the Hellenic Court of Audit

1.1.2014 - Member of the European Court of Auditors

1.2014-present Member of Chamber I 'Sustainable use of natural resources'

Publications:

(1) Accountability and the European Union, The Financial Dimension (Nomiki Vivliothiki, 2021, in Greek)

(2) Court of Audit: Modern Trends and Evolution (Nomiki Vivliothiki, 2012, in Greek, third edition 2023)

(3) Elements of Fiscal and Financial European Law (A. Sakkoulas, 2008, in Greek)

(4) The Institutional Role of the Hellenic Court of Audit (A. Sakkoulas, 2002; second edition, 2006)

(5) The European Court of Auditors (A. Sakkoulas, 1999, last update 2024, in Greek)

Recent articles:

(1) European economic governance and national policies: from budgetary «self-discipline» to enhanced supervision (volume in honor of Vasilios Skouris, A. Sakkoulas, 2016, p. 265-282, in Greek)

(2) Le semestre européen (Gestion et Finances Publiques, 2016, p.124-130, in French)

(3) Regards croisés sur le financement public du monocamérisme en Grèce (Gestion et finances Publiques '2e symposium européen des finances publiques: Le financement public des Parlements en Europe en débat', No 5 - 2018, p. 26-32, in French)

(4) Accountability problems in the European Union (magazine Theory and practice of administrative law, issue 18, in Greek)

(5) The Relationship between Financial and Judicial Accountability in the European Union (European Review of Public Law, ELPO, Vol 31, No 4 (114), 2019, p. 1135-1159, in English)

(6) The European Union and Climate Change: An Auditor's Perspective (Journal of Turkish Court of Auditors, 122, Sept. 2021, p. 9-32, in English)

(7) Follow-up of audit recommendations: The ECA's experience (Liber Amicorum of Pr. C. Mavrias, II, p.115 s., P.N. Sakkoulas, 2022, in English).

ANNEX 2: ANSWERS BY NIKOLAOS MILIONIS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire for the renewal of Members of the Court of Auditors

Performance of duties: lessons learnt and future commitments

1. What are your main achievements as a member of the ECA? What were the biggest setbacks?

Building on my experience as Vice-President of the Hellenic Court of Audit, I developed expertise in EU performance and compliance audit throughout my 12 years as Member of the European Court of Auditors (ECA). I have put priority on the relevance, quality and timely delivery of the reports I was in charge of. I am proud of the 17 performance audit reports, 9 chapters of the ECA's annual report (both on performance and compliance) and one opinion that I published during my two mandates working in Chamber I. They covered a wide range of topics of high EU relevance: climate, energy, environment, agriculture, fisheries, health, natural disasters.

It has been very rewarding to present these reports to the European Parliament, both in Budgetary Control Committee and in specialised Committees (AGRI, ENVI, REGI, TRAN), to the media, the civil society and the general public. One of the most important achievements has been the increase in the impact of our reports on public debate. This was the result of the excellent cooperation with other EU institutions and the various internal reforms we introduced to improve the selection of our audit topics, the presentation and clarity of our reports, the efficiency of our work as well as our communication. Last, but not least, we also owe our improved performance to our highly qualified and motivated staff.

The quality of individual reports is essential. I have always worked with my audit teams to ensure that we extract clear and relevant messages from the sometimes detailed and technical findings. This is at the same time key for the impact of our work and challenging, as it requires substantive work, an in-depth analysis of the audited area and of the EU policy long-term goals. Some of the most relevant climate, energy and environment audits I supervised had a long-term perspective (c.f. on offshore wind energy, biofuels, greening in the new cap or forest fires) aiming to meet EU goals up to 2050. It is not the auditor's role to make predictions, but I managed to warn on the already appearing difficulties and the various challenges on the route ahead.

To conclude on the achievements, I would like to mention one of the actions I promoted in favour of staff motivation and well-being. Inspired by practices in other public institutions and building on my personal aspirations, I pioneered the use of art (in the form of loans or cooperation with museums and artists) to pass on institutional values, enhance the feeling of belonging to a key EU institution and offer an appealing workspace. Thanks to a cooperation with the Acropolis Museum, our staff and visitors are now welcomed by unique copies of accounts that stood on the Parthenon about 2500 years ago. A reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability, two values at the heart of our European democracies.

Regarding the setbacks, the ECA has set itself the objective to produce reports within 13 months. This timeframe can be tight in practice and it is common that our audits exceed this target by a month or two. We are often auditing complex topics, with competences shared at EU, national and regional levels, and sometimes with auditees not used to our procedures. We expect our small audit teams to be immediately operational and rapidly gain expertise. Despite close supervising by audit principal managers and the Members, we are regularly facing some reasonable delays. While time pressure can help us focus, I have always prioritised the quality of the findings and recommendations, as our stakeholders need to be able to rely on them.

2. What are the main lessons learnt in your field of competences / results achieved in your duties and audit tasks?

I had the pleasure to be the reporting member for 7 Chapters of the Annual Report on compliance and 2 Chapters on performance:

• Chapter on 'Natural resources' Heading: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

• Chapter on 'Security and citizenship'Heading: 2015

• Chapter on the performanceof 'Natural resources' Heading (2019 - Common Agricultural Policy, 2020 - Common Fisheries Policy)

I was also in charge of 17 published special reports (+1 ongoing) and 1 opinion (+1 ongoing):

• Opinion on the Commission's proposal on theUnion Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support forhealth emergency preparedness and response (ongoing)

• Recovery and Resilience Facility measures inEnergy Efficiency in buildings(ongoing)

• Special report 16/2025: EU funding to tackle forest fires- More preventive measures, but insufficient evidence of results and their long-term sustainability

• Special report 06/2025: EU actions tackling sea pollution by ships- Not yet out of troubled waters

• Special report 20/2024: Common Agricultural Policy Plans- Greener, but not matching the EU's ambitions for the climate and the environment

• Special report 29/2023: The EU's support for sustainable biofuels in transport- An unclear route ahead

• Special report 25/2023: EU aquaculture policy- Stagnating production and unclear results despite increased EU funding

• Special report 22/2023: Offshore renewable energy in the EU- Ambitious plans for growth but sustainability remains a challenge

• Special report 22/2022: EU support to coal regions- Limited focus on socio-economic and energy transition

• Special report 14/2022: The Commission's response to fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy- Time to dig deeper

• Special report 11/2021: Exceptional support for EU milk producers in 2014-2016- Potential to improve future efficiency

• Opinion 5/2020 on the Commission's 2020/0006 (COD) proposals of 14 January 2020 and of 28 May 2020 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Just Transition Fund

• Special report 21/2019: Addressing antimicrobial resistance: progress in the animal sector, but this health threat remains a challenge for the EU

• Special report 18/2019: EU greenhouse gas emissions: Well reported, but better insight needed into future reductions

• Special report no 04/2019: The control system for organicproducts has improved, but some challenges remain

• Special report 1/2017: More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000network to its full potential

• Special report 26/2016: Making cross-compliancemore effective and achieving simplification remains challenging

• Special report 25/2016: The Land Parcel Identification System: a useful tool to determine the eligibility of agricultural land - but its management could be further improved

• Special report 25/2015: EU support for rural infrastructure: potential to achieve significantly greater value for money

• Special report 24/2014: Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasterswell managed?

The list of reports above illustrates the great variety of topics I covered working for the ECA's first Chamber. Over the years, the EU has raised its ambitions on most of the policies under the scrutiny of our Chamber, mainly under the directions set by the Green Deal, the UN commitments (COP meetings, Sustainable Development Goals) and various crises (Energy, COVID). Overall, it has been for me 12 years of challenging audits and of constant learning to develop the necessary expertise in the specific areas of my audits. I had also the honour to be elected Dean of the Chamber for a two-year mandate.

Looking back, I am proud of the progress achieved by our Chamber. An important source of satisfaction is to see that reports have a lasting impact on public debate. Whilst reports usually get high publicity in the week of their publication, it is also essential that they remain as a trusted point of reference. More and more, our reports are referred to months or even years after their publication, showing that our analysis keeps its relevance. I noticed, for example, that my reports on offshore wind energy or biofuels are often quoted in academic/policy papers or conferences on future policy options.

One of the lessons I can draw from my experience at ECA is how challenging it is to bring added value on such a diversified and complex portfolio of tasks. We are constantly delving into new topics, developing expertise, challenging current policy results and proposing a better way forward. Therefore, it is crucial to stay up-to-date with developments in various policy domains and to relentlessly seek new ways to perform our job more efficiently. I can confidently state that modern auditing is not only about knowledge and expertise; it also requires a readiness to learn and broad communication skills. This is the attitude that I strive to nurture in myself.

3. What added value could you bring to the ECA on your second term and/or particularly in the area you would be responsible for? Would you like to change your area of responsibility? What motivates you?

After close to 12 years in Chamber I, I have very recently been transferred to Chamber III, responsible for external actions, security and justice. My first assignment is an audit to check the EU funding supporting Ukraine. My intention is to get involved in crucial issues for EU's security, including defence, the rule of law, migration, Sustainable Development Goals and climate adaptation in third countries.

The importance of these topics for the future of the EU is a key source of motivation. Through the expert critical lens of the auditor, I aim to help our Union progress, reinforce itself and ensure its stability and protection in a world full of uncertainties. I am also enjoying the teamwork and positive working environment at the ECA. Together with highly qualified, diverse and committed colleagues, I wish to contribute to a stronger Union.

My extensive experience at the ECA has provided me with the undeniable ability and skills to navigate and implement new projects and ideas, despite administrative challenges and complexities. This capability makes me an effective ECA Member, regardless of how difficult or challenging the task may be.

4. How do you make sure to reach the planned audit objectives of an audit task? Have you ever been in the situation where you could not realize the audit task and for which reasons? How do you operate in such controversial situations?

I have achieved the planned audit objectives for all tasks assigned to me and have never faced a situation where I would have to abandon an essential issue or drop the task in full. The key to this positive track record is a strong personal involvement in the audit task and close cooperation with the audit team. At planning stage, it is essential to define the audit scope precisely, identifying the main issues of policy relevance, while focusing on key EU competencies. During the implementation phase, I regularly monitor progress, take part in an audit mission on the spot to get experience from the ground and help the team identify the main messages.

As in all complex projects, there were situations where the early audit results deviated from the plan. There could be some delays due to unexpected additional work needed, staffing problems or slow cooperation of the auditees. These situations are quite common, but they are usually well taken care of by the audit team and could result in some minor delays. It might also happen that we face a more fundamental problem, such as an audit team having difficulties gathering sufficient evidence or in answering the audit questions. Such situations usually require direct involvement of my private office staff and myself. In these cases, I have always prioritised quality over precipitation to produce a report that our stakeholders can rely on.

5. If you were reconfirmed for a second mandate and hypothetically, if you were elected Dean of a Chamber in the ECA, how would you steer the work to define its priorities? Could you give us two or three examples of areas to focus on in the future?

I would be honoured to be once more entrusted by my Colleagues with the position of Dean. When I was Dean of Chamber I, I saw my role as a facilitator, respecting the collegial spirit of our institution. The involvement of all Chamber Members contributes to a better definition of the priorities and a solid choice of audit tasks. The smooth running of an audit Chamber requires close and regular cooperation across all levels and a positive working atmosphere.

I would also actively support and contribute to discussions and decision-making regarding the ECA's audit approach in the context of the new Multiannual Financial Framework and the new financing model closely linked to it.

Regarding the selection of audit topics, I would aim to align with the main EU priorities. Ensuring EU security or achieving the Sustainable Development Goals would be key drivers for selecting tasks in Chamber 3. In order to ensure the timeliness and relevance of our reports, I would support tasks which coincide with new policy or legislative developments in the European Parliament and have, to the extent possible, a forward-looking perspective.

I would also advocate for more cross-chamber projects, as the complexity of many challenges the EU is currently facing requires a perspective that goes beyond a single sector or policy domain.

Another priority would be to continue the ECA's efforts to apply clear language and graphs in its reports to help pass on our messages more easily. There is still a tendency to use jargon or lose our readers in technical details, despite the huge progress achieved in recent years.

6. If you had to manage the selection of audit tasks in view of the preparation of the ECA annual working programme, on which basis would you make your choice among the list of priorities received from the Parliament and/or the CONT committee?

What would you do if a political priority does not correspond to the ECA risk assessment of the Union's activities?

We welcome the audit task suggestions from the CONT Committee and the European Parliament's specialised Committees, and analyse all of them carefully. To prepare our work programme, we apply a number of criteria, which include stakeholders' interest, relevance, risks, materiality, auditability/feasibility, timeliness and previous audit coverage. We report back to Parliament on which tasks were retained or explain why they could not. We usually cover a large share of these proposals. In parallel, we carry out our own analysis of potential audit topics using the same criteria. It is important to note that, while Parliament's proposals are highly appreciated, the ECA decides independently on its work programme. Following the above-mentioned criteria, the aim is to maximise the impact of the audits while making an efficient use of the resources.

Management of portfolio, working methods and deliverables

7. Producing high quality, robust and timely reports is key:

- How would you ensure that the data used in an audit are reliable and that the findings are not outdated?

Data is a key source of audit evidence. Our standard practice is to ensure that we use the latest available information and that it is reliable. We usually use trusted sources, such as statistical data, financial information, figures from scientific papers. We also carry out our own checks and often report cases of unreliable or incomplete data in our special reports. The data is cross-checked with the auditee during the clearing procedure and with the Commission during the final adversarial meeting. Finally, under my supervision, my private office staff carries out regular checks on the data presented.

- How would you improve the quality and pertinence of the recommendations?

Good underlying audit work is a prerequisite for the quality of the recommendations. This requires careful planning, the collecting of reliable audit evidence and sound findings. After an internal reflection on potential recommendations, we must engage in an open dialogue with the auditee and carefully consider the added value, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the proposed recommendations. In the end, the ECA decides independently on the recommendations.

I believe that a constructive dialogue improves the quality of the recommendation, but also the willingness of the auditee to rapidly implement them. My audit experience and discussions with the auditee suggest there is a need for the ECA's recommendations to be sometimes less burdensome and more focused on results.

8. Theaim of the ECA's reform is to establish a stronger accountability relationship between the audit team and the rapporteur member:

- Given your experience, do you think that the role of a member is to be more involved in the audit work?

Staff is ECA's main asset. I had the chance to work with highly professional and motivated auditors. My relations with the audit teams are based on trust, close cooperation and openness. Auditors must feel empowered to carry out their work without unnecessary supervision or micro-management. Still, they know they can rely on my support and the full involvement of my private office, when facing difficult situations. I help set directions, choose between alternative options and identify the main messages. Overall, I take responsibility for the quality of the report and make sure it is soundly evidenced. I am also encouraging the Head of Task to participate in the promotion of the report, supporting me in press briefings, accompanying me to the presentation in Parliament and participating in conferences or round tables. Involving staff increases their motivation and their understanding of the expectations of our stakeholders.

- Would you change the way you work with an audit team? If yes, how?

My working experience with audit teams has been very positive and I would not see a need to change my collaborative approach. However, based on the same spirit of trust and openness, my private office staff and I are attentive to feedback received from the audit teams and ideas to further improve.

9. What would be your suggestions to further improve, modernise the ECA functioning, programming and work (audit cycle)? After your first mandate, could you give us a positive aspect of the ECA working and a negative one?

New technologies can play a key role in improving the way we function. We have set up a group of IT audit specialists to experiment, support new audit approaches and spread knowledge amongst our staff. With a better connection to various databases set up by our auditees, we could expand our use of their data to carry out whole-of-population analyses. Artificial intelligence may also help our auditors gain access to information, carry out rapid analyses, deal with documents in various languages, perform data analysis or improve the drafting. There are several hurdles to overcome, such as gaining full access to data, or ensuring the protection of confidential information. The technology also has some limits. In any case, it is essential that the auditor stays in control, with a full audit trail to ensure the reliability of the results obtained.

The most positive aspect about working at ECA is its expertise and the motivation of its staff. Together, we have been able to handle very complex topics and produce useful reports for our stakeholders. On the negative side, the ECA sometimes has heavy coordination and review procedures meant to guarantee the uniformity and quality of our reports. They tend to weigh on our efficiency and I think we can find a better balance.

10. Under the Treaty, the Court is required to assist Parliament in exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget in order to enhance both the public oversight of the general spending and its value for money:

- With the experience of your first term, how could the cooperation between the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) on auditing the EU budget be further improved?

The purpose of the ECA performance audit reports is to bring evidence to the public debate on how well EU-funded policies and programmes are working. The European Parliament is our main stakeholder and I am delighted to see a high and increasing interest in our work. Important debates take place during the presentation of our reports to the European Parliament Committee, in the presence of the Commission representatives. These are building blocks for the discharge procedure, but also help shape future policies. Joint Committee meetings have also contributed to a richer and wider discussion on our reports. There is still room for progress and it is important to establish a regular dialogue between the Parliament's Committees and our Chambers. The main channel has historically been the very constructive annual meetings with the Committee for Budgetary Control. I am happy to see this practice is extending to other Committees. As Chamber I Member, I participated to meetings with the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and with the Committee for Environment, Climate and Food Safety that were extremely useful to clarify expectations and enhance cooperation.

- Similarly, how to strengthen relations between ECA and national audit institutions?

Through the INTOSAI and the EUROSAI, supreme audit institutions have established channels to develop their auditing standards, exchange on methodology, discuss latest policy developments and share innovative practices. The Contact Committee ensures cooperation between the ECA and the Supreme Audit Institutions of the Member States. The ECA should continue to be a very active partner sharing its experience auditing EU policies and funds, and learning from other peers' experience. The EU's Supreme Audit Institutions are also involved in checking similar EU action from a national perspective. There is a need to promote different forms of cooperation between the EU and national auditors, such as coordinating some audits on a common or similar topics. Joint conferences are also useful to communicate on the recent audits carried out at EU and national levels.

11. How will you support the Parliament in the achievement of the shortening of the discharge procedure? What actions can be undertaken from your side?

The ECA is at the full disposal of the Parliament during the discharge procedure and is replying diligently to all request for hearings or to additional questions. An earlier publication of our Annual Report could be considered to help shortening the procedure. We have explored ways to achieve efficiency gains in the adversarial procedure with the Commission or in the translation and post-production processes. For shared management expenditure, the Commission also depends on the diligence of the replies of national authorities. Working with shorter deadlines would require efforts on all sides and, where possible, further automation of our processes. I will support further progress in this area.

Independence and integrity

12. What guarantees of independence are you able to give the European Parliament, and how would you make sure that any past, current or future activities you carry out could not cast doubt on the performance of your duties at the ECA?

Trained and working as a Judge of the Hellenic Court of Audit, I always had a strong culture of independence. At the ECA, we also abide by high ethical standards reflected in our Code of Conduct and submit ourselves to the scrutiny of our Ethics Committee. As all ECA Members, I transparently publish and regularly update my declaration of interests. In line with the international INTOSAI and our ECA standards, I have carried out my work as auditor with the sole interest of the EU citizens in mind.

13. How would you deal with a major irregularity or even fraud in EU funds and/or corruption case involving persons in your Member State of origin? Were you in this situation during your current mandate?

If an audit team were to discover a case of possible fraud in Greece or in any other country, I would ask them to follow the ECA procedures for such situations, which is to send the case to OLAF and the EPPO. I have not come across such case in Greece during this mandate. Working mostly on performance audits, we would usually cover in more depth four or five member states (which might not include Greece) and the focus would generally be more on results achieved rather than the legality of the expenditure.

I keep myself informed of cases of fraud reported in the Greek media, as they are often a topic for public debate, for example during my presentation of the ECA's annual report in Greece.

14. The existence of conflict of interests can trigger a reputation risk for the ECA. How would you manage any conflict of interest?

As all ECA Members, I have submitted and updated when necessary my declaration of interests. Should I be confronted with a situation that could be perceived as a conflict of interest, I would discuss it with the President and other ECA Members and find a way how to eliminate this risk, for instance, by assigning the task to another Reporting Member. The Ethics Committee is also competent to deal with some of these cases.

15. Are you involved in any legal proceedings? if so, what kind?

No, I am not involved in any legal proceedings.

16. What specific commitments are you prepared to make in terms of enhanced transparency, increased cooperation and effective follow-up to Parliament's positions and requests for audits?

The ECA reports back to the Parliament on all comments made during the discharge procedure and on every proposal for an audit task (see reply to question 6 regarding the criteria applied by ECA). Improving cooperation on these issues was discussed during the annual meetings with the CONT Committee and meetings with other Parliamentary Committees. These exchanges are precious and could take place more often (see also the reply to question 10). During these meetings, we could present data on the number of proposals received and taken on board, and the most common reasons for not selecting some of them.

Other questions

17. Will you withdraw your candidacy to a renewal of mandate if Parliament's opinion on your appointment as Member of the ECA is unfavourable?

The Parliament is our main stakeholder and the voice of the EU citizens that we have put at the core of our strategy. The Parliament's trust in my qualities, experience, integrity and motivation are essential to the performance of my duties. I could not maintain my candidacy in case of an unfavourable opinion.

18. Being appointed Member of the ECA requires full attention and dedication to the institution itself and to ensure trust for the Union among its citizens:

- What are your views on the best way to assume these professional duties?

Members are expected to lead by example and this is key for the people's trust in our institution and in the EU project. I will continue to give my full dedication to my duties as I have done over the past 12 years. I am committed to intense cooperation with the other ECA Members in line with the principle of collegiality and with ECA staff, our main asset. I will do my utmost to promote ECA's work as widely as possible, in parliamentary hearings, press briefings or conferences. I will continue to spread knowledge about the ECA, its work and values by updating the books I published in Greek on the functioning of the ECA and on the accountability principle, and by writing articles.

- What are your current personal arrangements in terms of number of days of presence in Luxembourg? Do you plan to change these arrangements?

Over the past 12 years, I have been working on a daily basis in my office in Luxembourg. I am a permanent resident in the country, living in a rented appartement. I do not intend to change these arrangements.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register[1], or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE