Draft fiche on delegated act on the European code of conduct on partnership (ECCP) Structured Dialogue Brussels, 19 September

General issues raised by a number of Stakeholders The nature of the delegated act and its purpose The organisation of partnership for the on-going preparation Contribution to/ participation in the decision- making process vs. taking the final decision

Main changes based on the comments received (I) The following changes have been made to the fiche: a clearer distinction between the requirements of the regulations and recommendations clarification that recommendations and best practices are not legally binding for Member States titles of sections have been aligned with Article 5.3 3

4 Main changes based on the comments received (II) best practices have been added specific references to/provisions for territorial cooperation programmes have been added further clarification that rules will fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and that Member States have the flexibility to pursue main objectives and principles in different ways with regard to their respective institutional and legal framework

Some comments have not resulted in changes to the text, example: (I) Stakeholders were concerned about the obligation to involve all partners at all stages. Article 5.2 of the CPR stipulates that partners shall be involved at all stages, i.e. in the preparation of Partnership Agreement and progress report and preparation and implementation of programmes, incl. participation in monitoring committees. The fiche does recommend to use the same partners as this is a good practice for coherence and “continuity”, if this is feasible according to the institutional set-up of the Member States (part 4). 5

The question of the conflict of interest was raised and the Commission has been asked for additional guidance on this topic. The question is whether the fiche should go into this level of detail. At present the fiche refers to obligations to be laid down by Member States and managing authorities who should provide appropriate information and training on this. 6 Some comments have not resulted in changes to the text, example: (II)

Some stakeholders commented that the level of detail of the fiche is too high and that it addresses all stages from programming to evaluation. However, the fiche is not going beyond the Regulations and it is as detailed as possible, as required by the political agreement, in order to give all stakeholders the best overview possible of what will be covered by the delegated act. There have also been requests for further definitions and precisions. These will be addressed during the expert group meeting as the fiche needs to focus on what the delegated act on the ECCP will cover. 7 Some comments have not resulted in changes to the text, example: (III)

Next Steps Delegated act to be adopted following the entry inrto force of ESI Funds Regulations