RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 17 April 2013  
on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agencies for 
the financial year 2011: performance, financial management and control  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the report of 14 November 2011 from the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2009 financial year (COM(2011) 736) and the 
accompanying Commission Staff Working Documents (SEC(2011) 1350 and SEC(2011) 1351),  
— having regard to the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the 
European Commission on decentralised agencies of 19 July 2012,  
— having regard to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies annexed to the Joint Statement of 
19 July 2012,  
— having regard to the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised 
agencies, adopted by the Commission in December 2012,  
— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘European agencies – the way forward’ 
(COM(2008) 135),  
— having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2012 on the 2010 discharge: performance, financial 
management and control of EU Agencies (  1 ), 
— 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 Communities (  2 ), and in particular 
Article 185 thereof,  
— having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (  3 ), and in particular Article 208 thereof,  
— having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the 
framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation 
(EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the 
European Communities (  4 ), and in particular Article 96 thereof,  
— having regard to Special Report No 15/2012 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Management of Conflict 
of Interest in selected EU Agencies’,  
— having regard to the specific annual reports (  5 ) of the Court of Auditors on the annual accounts of the 
decentralised agencies for the financial year 2011,  
— having regard to its study entitled ‘Opportunity and feasibility of establishing common support services 
for EU Agencies’, issued on 7 April 2009,EN L 308/374 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013  
( 1 ) OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 388.  
( 2 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.  
( 5 ) OJ C 368, 16.12.2011.
— having regard to its Declaration of 18 May 2010 on the Union’s efforts in combating corruption (  1 ), to 
its Resolution of 15 September 2011 on the EU’s efforts to combat corruption (  2 ), and to the 
Commission Communication on Fighting corruption in the EU (COM(2011) 308);  
— having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,  
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee 
on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 
and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0118/2013),  
A. whereas this resolution contains, for each body within the meaning of Article 185 of Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 1605/2002, the horizontal observations accompanying the discharge decisions in 
accordance with Article 96 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 and Article 3 of Annex VI 
to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure,  
B. whereas there has been a threefold increase in the number of agencies over the last decade, from 10 in 
2001 to 30 in 2011,  
General issues  
1. Stresses the importance of the tasks performed by the agencies and their direct impact on the daily life 
of citizens, in particular as regards the quality of medicines, food safety, aviation security and the 
control of outbreaks of infectious diseases; in this context, emphasises the utmost importance of the 
autonomy of the agencies, in particular of the regulatory ones and of those in charge of collecting 
independent information; recalls that the main purpose of establishing decentralised agencies was to be 
able to provide independent technical and scientific assessments;  
2. Recalls that in July 2012, after three years of analysis and negotiations, Parliament, the Council and the 
Commission adopted a Common Approach on decentralised agencies, a political agreement concerning 
the future management and reform of the agencies; welcomes the conclusion of this agreement but 
deplores the fact that it neglects to set out either decision-making procedures in respect of the 
implementation of the actions proposed thereon or arrangements for Parliament oversight of those 
procedures;  
3. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ reports and, in particular, its efforts to comply with the requests made 
by Parliament for the Court to conduct better audits and facilitate the discharge procedure;  
4. Notes with satisfaction that the Court’s audit reports now contain more detailed information than in 
previous years; encourages the Court to continue on this positive trend and to further develop 
performance audit elements, both in its several annual audit reports and in its special reports; calls 
on the Court to promote debates in which both parties are heard, whenever the agencies so wish, and 
to render its reports more informative and transparent, in particular by duly identifying cases in which 
an agency has uncovered a problem and has notified it to the Court, and by signalling even more 
clearly cases in which a reservation has been issued;  
5. Reminds all the agencies of their obligation to submit to the discharge authority a report drawn up by 
their director summarising the number and nature of internal audits conducted by their internal auditor, 
the recommendations made and the follow-up given to them, as provided for in Article 72(5) of 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/375  
( 1 ) OJ C 161 E, 31.5.2011, p. 62.  
( 2 ) OJ C 51 E, 22.2.2013, p. 121.
6. Commends the good cooperation with the responsible committee from the side of the Union Agencies 
Network (‘the Network’), a forum for coordination, information exchange and agreement of common 
positions on issues of common interest for agencies, and encourages the strengthening of the Network; 
notes with satisfaction the availability and openness of the directors of the agencies contacted in the 
framework of the annual discharge procedure; notes with surprise the Network’s letter of 19 October 
2012 asking Parliament to ‘revert to its practice of earlier years’; encourages and expects the Network, 
on the contrary, to support the changes requested by Parliament, in its previous discharge reports, for 
improved management and transparency and for anti-conflict of interest measures to be taken for the 
benefit of consumers and taxpayers’ money;  
7. Emphasises the need to focus on effectiveness and transparency in the discharge exercise and invites all 
involved parties – the Court of Auditors, the Council, the agencies and the Network – to approach the 
discharge from that position; emphasises that the focus shift towards performance should by no means 
hamper regularity and sound financial management;  
8. Points out, in this context, the relationship between administrative weight and the output of the 
agencies; believes that for the agencies to operate as efficiently as possible and to make the most of 
their resources, they must seek synergies, exchange best practices and share services on the basis of 
geographical proximity or relevance; considers that access to services provided by the Commission 
should also be improved, expanded and facilitated;  
9. Suggests that the financial rules applicable to the Agencies should be simplified, which would allow the 
agencies’ administrative staff costs to be reduced; calls on the Commission to draw up proposals to that 
effect and to encourage the agencies to use the simplification option as regards recruitment procedures 
where the standard procedure is designed for a larger scale organisation and presents an excessive 
burden for the agencies;  
10. Notes with concern that there are a number of problems identified by the Court of Auditors which 
affect several agencies, in particular as regards:  
— carryovers which are not supported by commitments or which appear excessively high,  
— lack of transparency or rigour in recruitments,  
— procurement and contract management,  
— potential conflicts of interest, including at management board level;  
11. Notes, in this context, the reply of the Network; welcomes the coordinated action of the agencies and 
their intention to tackle the problems identified by the Court of Auditors and urges the Network, as 
well as the individual agencies, to report back to the discharge authority on the progress of the 
implementation of the concrete measures to redress the shortcomings identified by the Court of 
Auditors and Parliament in the discharge procedure for the financial year 2010; emphasises the fact 
that the responsibility lies with the executive directors and the management boards of the agencies;  
12. Urges the Network, as well as the individual agencies, to report to the discharge authority on the 
progress of the implementation of those ideas and approaches to assess whether a chosen approach has 
proved effective in resolving the outstanding issues identified by the Court of Auditors and pointed out 
in the Common Approach, and to report to the discharge authority on both the individual and 
collective actions taken to address the Court of Auditors’ findings, and the results thereof;  
13. Emphasises that the agencies have for some time been calling for greater flexibility in the rules 
applicable to them under the Financial Regulation; recognises that most of those rules are dispropor ­
tionate and ill-suited not only to the size and objectives of the majority of agencies, but also to their 
characteristics; considers that simplification of the financial and statutory rules applicable to the 
agencies would improve their efficiency, reduce their expenditure and solve many of the problems 
pointed out by the Court of Auditors;EN L 308/376 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013
14. Notes that some agencies in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice are operational ones and that the 
implementation of their budget also depends on external factors, which should be considered during 
the budgetary process;  
Budgetary and financial management  
15. Reiterates that the principle of annuality is one of the three basic accounting principles (unity, annuality 
and balance) indispensable to ensure an efficient implementation of the Union budget; notes that 
decentralised agencies do not always fully comply with this principle;  
16. Reminds the agencies that the persistent problem of carryovers has yet to be addressed; takes note of 
the agencies’ explanations as regards the difficulty in avoiding carryovers in operational expenditure; 
believes, nevertheless, that in a number of cases there is room for improvement, in particular by means 
of a better management of commitment appropriations based on real needs, better internal planning 
and general revenue forecasting and more stringent budgetary discipline and regular overview of 
spending; calls on the agencies to assess their internal administrative procedures in order to reduce 
their administrative burden, in particular as regards public procurement and staff recruitment 
procedures; believes that both the Commission and the Court of Auditors should provide effective 
assistance to the agencies in this area;  
17. Points out that in some cases the internal planning needs to be improved, which calls on the agencies 
to enhance their procedures; acknowledges at the same time that under certain circumstances and with 
due justification (e.g. settlements of payments have not been possible in the contracting year) this 
should be mentioned in a transparent way in the report of the Court of Auditors; is of the opinion that 
only so a true assessment can be made whether carryovers are too high or not;  
18. Stresses, in this context, that the hierarchy of norms is to be taken into account, and believes that the 
focus should be put on sound financial management; points out, however, that the current financial 
rules do not resolve the problem of agencies whose funding is based on charges, and calls on the 
Commission to propose a solution to this issue during the next revision of the financial rules applicable 
to the agencies; points out that the Financial Regulation is not suited either to agencies which generate 
surpluses, and stresses that it is essential to consider, as part of the revision, ways of resolving this 
problem, e.g. by creating a limited reserve fund;  
19. Expects the Court of Auditors, in its role as an external auditor as a follow-up to Parliament’s discharge 
report in 2010 and its report on the benchmarking of agencies, to consult the Network to compose an 
openly accessible and transparent benchmarking and ranking procedure for agencies by using 
important indicators in the fields of sound financial and budgetary management, low governance 
costs and efficient operational effectiveness, and to provide the underlying data in an easily accessible 
format (e.g. Excel files and/or CSV files);  
20. Notes with concern that the lack of flexibility within the budget has been recognised as a weakness by 
certain agencies, which suggests that savings could be made if there was enough flexibility within the 
budget from title to title; calls on the Commission to closely examine the situation and to come forth 
with proposals addressing this issue;  
21. Notes that the agencies undergo numerous different audit and control procedures in the course of the 
year, which are often very unevenly distributed and may create difficulties to them; believes that that 
problem should be addressed primarily by better coordinating those various audits (  1 ); considers that 
the agencies should be consulted in order to find practical solutions for this issue without hampering 
the performance of their core tasks; invites the Court of Auditors, the Commission, the agencies and 
the Network to come up with an approach of this matter suitable for all involved parties;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/377  
( 1 ) In this respect, see action 53 of the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised 
agencies.
22. Demands that all agencies and joint undertakings systematically annex a standardised template 
regarding the publication of their final annual accounts which includes the data presented in their 
reports on the implementation of the budget and in their reports on the budgetary and financial 
management; recommends that all agencies and joint undertakings provide this information in a 
comprehensive, friendly accessible and transparent manner (e.g., Excel files and/or CSV files), in 
order to ease the comparison between their budgetary executions, and thus enabling Parliament and 
the public to comprehensively compare their expenses;  
23. Requests the Network to introduce a detailed, standardised budget line system so that an aggregation 
and comparison of the agencies revenues and expenses, as well as the implementation and use of 
appropriations for each budget line, can be compared by title, by chapter and by line; furthermore, asks 
the Network to make the subsequent comparison and to ensure that the conclusions as well as the 
underlying data are freely available in an easily accessible format (e.g. Excel files and/or CSV files);  
Human resources and recruitment policy  
24. Points out that the Staff Regulations establish the principles underlying the staff policy adopted by the 
agencies and that there is a need for greater flexibility and simplification of the statutory rules 
applicable to agencies in order to ensure that they function more effectively in this respect; points 
out furthermore that, although Article 110 of the Staff Regulations allows some flexibility, since the 
final decision rests with the Commission, it is vital that a previous agreement be reached between the 
agencies and the Commission; considers that, in the event of disagreement, the Commission should 
present a reasoned decision to Parliament’s committee responsible;  
25. Reminds the agencies that their staff policy planning should adopt a global programming approach to 
human resources which tallies with their budgetary and administrative capacities, in order to ensure that 
staff policy is cohesive and suited to their needs; points out, furthermore, that staff plans should take 
into account certain basic considerations, such as gender and geographical balance; welcomes, in this 
regard, the initiatives envisaged by the Commission in the Roadmap and the fact that the specific 
characteristics of the agencies are being acknowledged in the ongoing revision of the Staff Regulations;  
26. Expresses its concern at the fact that the procedures for recruiting staff to the agencies have posed a 
regular problem ever since the agencies were created, while the Court of Auditors in its audits 
concerning the financial year 2011 detected problems or weaknesses in this area in all but two of 
the agencies; is surprised that neither the Common Approach nor the Roadmap provide for any action 
in this area;  
27. Considers that the well-established practice of Staff Policy Plans is a valuable tool for long-term staff 
planning; is increasingly concerned that the Commission annuls agreed Staff Policy Plans within the 
annual budget procedure and, therefore, calls on the Commission to restrict itself in this respect;  
28. Calls on all agencies to inform the discharge authority of the number of days of leave authorised to 
each grade under the flexitime and compensatory leave schemes annually annexed to their annual 
activity reports;  
Conflicts of interest and transparency  
29. Welcomes the Special Report No 15/2012 of the Court of Auditors on Management of Conflict of 
Interest in selected EU Agencies, which stems from Parliament’s request for the Court to undertake a 
comprehensive analysis of the agencies’ approach to the management of situations where there are 
potential conflicts of interest;  
30. Considers that the main added value of Special Report No 15/2012 of the Court of Auditors lies in the 
regular monitoring of the agencies’ progress as regards management and prevention of conflicts of 
interest; calls on the Court to further follow-up this issue extending the scope of its audit to other 
agencies, and to present its findings in a future Special Report on the matter;EN L 308/378 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013
31. Recalls that in its Special Report No 15/2012, the Court of Auditors has evaluated policies and 
procedures for the management of conflict of interest in four selected agencies: European Aviation 
Safety Agency (EASA), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and 
European Medicines Agency (EMA);  
32. Considers that the purpose of the Court of Auditors’ audit was to give an answer to two questions: 
firstly, were adequate policies and procedures in place, and secondly, were those policies and procedures 
adequately implemented; notes, furthermore, that the Court based its work on the definition of conflict 
of interest as provided for in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
guidelines, and that the reference framework for minimum requirements adopted by the Court was also 
derived from those guidelines; stresses however that, although the OECD guidelines offer an inter ­
national benchmark on this matter, they basically relate to conflicts of interests in the framework of 
public sector employees and cannot, therefore, provide an adequate basis for an effective response in 
the case of potential conflicts of interests among the governing bodies and other bodies involved in the 
agencies’ work, such as management boards and expert panels; nevertheless recognises the value of the 
OECD’s toolkit, and especially the checklist for gifts and benefits, etc., as well as the recommendations 
made concerning penalties, the need to check the completeness and content of statements of interests 
and the requirement to harness expertise and identify potential conflicts of interest;  
33. Notes that conflicts of interest can also occur between members of the Management Board of an agency 
and the agency itself, due to national or institutional interests which may endanger the proper func ­
tioning of the agency; therefore, calls on the Commission to urgently submit to Parliament a proposal 
to address this issue; expects that in the meantime the declarations of interests of each and every 
member of the management boards of the agencies will be made public, in the interests of trans ­
parency;  
34. Regrets that, according to the findings of the Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 15/2012, at 
the time of completion of its field work (October 2011), none of the four selected agencies had 
adequately managed conflict of interest situations; notes that while EMA and EFSA had developed 
more advanced policies for managing conflict of interest, ECHA’s policies were incomplete and 
EASA did not have such policies in place;  
35. Notes with concern that the Court of Auditors reported a number of shortcomings, in particular as 
regards the implementation of policies and procedures for staff and the board of appeal (ECHA), 
transparency as regards the publication of annual declarations of interest (EASA) and training on 
conflicts of interest (ECHA and EASA); stresses that, out of the four agencies audited by the Court, 
only EMA had a policy on gifts and invitations put in place;  
36. Welcomes the recommendations made by the Court of Auditors to the four agencies audited; welcomes 
the fact that following the Court’ audits, the four selected agencies have taken a number of steps to 
address their individual deficiencies; urges the agencies to report to the discharge authority on any 
further measures taken as regards the implementation of their policies and procedures to address those 
shortcomings, including as regards management of conflicts of interest;  
37. Notes that the Court of Auditors identified a number of significant shortcomings related to post- 
employment issues which weaken the prevention of ‘revolving doors’ situations; supports the Court 
of Auditors’ recommendation stressing the need to address those post-employment issues, and takes the 
view that the ‘cooling-off’ period of anyone who has served as director of an agency or has discharged 
major responsibilities within an agency needs to be clarified;  
38. Endorses the Court of Auditors’ recommendation inviting all Union institutions and decentralised 
bodies to examine whether the recommendations of its Special Report No 15/2012 are relevant and 
applicable to them; considers that all agencies should develop and implement comprehensive inde ­
pendence policies and procedures, inter alia, establishing a breach of trust mechanism and clear 
sanctions or changing those already in place on the basis of lessons learned and recommendations 
of Special Report No 15/2012; calls on the agencies to report to the discharge authority on this matter 
before the end of 2013;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/379
39. Welcomes the European Ombudsman’s decision to conduct an own initiative inquiry into cases of 
‘revolving door-type’ conflicts of interest in several cases recently reported at the Commission; endorses 
the warning issued by the Ombudsman according to which, although effective management of conflicts 
of interest is a key part of good governance and sound ethical conduct, not all problems relating to 
governance and ethics necessarily imply a conflict of interest; takes the view that conflicts of interests 
need to be addressed within their strict limits, and stresses the need for training and prevention 
strategies and actions to be promoted as regards conflicts of interest in the Union institutions;  
40. Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ recommendation for the Union to consider further developing its 
regulatory framework dedicated to the management of conflict of interest situations;  
41. Welcomes the interinstitutional Joint Statement of 19 July 2012 on decentralised agencies, and in 
particular its provisions on management and prevention of conflict of interest (paragraphs 11 and 18) 
and on the independence of their scientific experts (paragraph 20);  
42. Calls on the Court of Auditors to conduct an assessment of the implementation by the agencies of any 
measures taken on the basis of the recommendations made to them in its Special Report No 15/2012; 
calls on the Network to develop proposals based on exchanges of best practices and lessons learned to 
enable it to identify, in cooperation with the Commission and the Court of Auditors, those agencies, or 
fields in which they operate, where there is greatest risk of conflicts of interest; welcomes, in that 
context, the review of the Transparency Register for lobby groups in the Union institutions, and urges 
the Commission and the agencies to implement measures stemming from that review concerning 
potential conflicts of interest;  
43. Welcomes the Commission’s foreseen action on conflicts of interest and, in particular, its intention to 
come up with guidelines for a coherent policy on the prevention and management of conflicts of 
interest for members of the management boards and directors, experts in scientific committees, and 
members of boards of appeal (  1 ), a task for which the Commission itself takes responsibility and has set 
2013 as the target year; notes with satisfaction that this task is one of the Commission’s priority actions 
and milestones; urges the Commission to respect the proposed deadline to implement this action and 
to report to the discharge authority on its outcome before the end of 2013, attaching to its report the 
relevant legislative proposals;  
44. Notes that, in this regard, the Commission foresees two actions to be undertaken by the agencies in 
2013, namely, to adopt and implement a clear policy on conflicts of interest and, in particular, 
exchange experience and possibly develop a coordinated approach to common problems concerning 
scientific committees and boards of appeal, and define transparent and objectively verifiable criteria for 
the impartiality and independence of the members of boards of appeal, and to review selection 
procedures for members of scientific committees (  2 ); urges the agencies to report to the discharge 
authority on the state of play as regards those tasks before the end of 2013;  
45. Invites the Commission to bear in mind the need to maintain an adequate balance between risks/ 
benefits as regards the management of conflicts of interest, on one hand, and the objective to obtain 
the best possible scientific advice, on the other; considers that the proliferation of codes of conduct and 
ethical guidelines cannot rule out conflicts of interest; takes the view that the adoption of codes of 
conduct and ethical guidelines is necessary, but not sufficient, and that the eradication of conflicts of 
interest can only be achieved through the implementation of simple and appropriate rules, and their 
effective enforcement, as part of a general culture of honesty, integrity and transparency;EN L 308/380 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013  
( 1 ) See the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, action 33.  
( 2 ) See the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, actions 34 and 35.
46. Reiterates the fact that a high level of transparency is a key element to mitigate risks of conflict of 
interest; calls therefore on the agencies that have not yet done so to make available on their websites 
the list of their management boards’ members, management staff and external and in-house experts, 
together with their respective declarations of interests and curriculum vitae;  
Roadmap  
47. Welcomes the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies (‘the 
Roadmap’), adopted by the Commission in December 2012, and invites all involved parties to take on 
board the ideas expressed thereon, in particular in the context of the ongoing negotiations on the 
multiannual financial framework (MFF);  
48. Fully supports the Commission’s main objectives set out in the Roadmap, namely, achieving more 
balanced governance, enhancing the agencies’ efficiency and accountability and introducing greater 
coherence in the way they function; welcomes the actions proposed thereon, in particular regarding 
the streamlining of management boards, efforts to seek synergies between agencies and the possibility 
of merging some of them;  
49. Notes, however, that the Roadmap, while being a good starting point, still lacks a comprehensive 
assessment of the current agencies landscape, as well as a clear vision and strategy addressing the 
need to modernise the agencies; believes that the Commission could have been more ambitious and 
demanding when it comes to specific actions targeting individual agencies or types or groups of 
agencies; regrets that the lengthy work of the Interinstitutional Working Group has led to a rather 
modest outcome at this stage, and that the Council has not shown openness to a more ambitious 
approach; is convinced that a more proactive and forward looking approach would have led to a more 
considerable added value;  
50. Welcomes the fact that one of the priorities of the Common Approach is to improve the governance of 
the agencies, in particular by defining more clearly the roles of the management board and the 
executive director, and by reviewing the remit of Commission and Parliament representatives on the 
governing boards; takes the view that this process will also help to clarify the agencies’ relationship with 
the Union institutions and Member States, to establish enhanced accountability mechanisms for the 
agencies and to define the Commission’s degree of responsibility in respect of the agencies’ activities, 
whilst respecting the principle of the agencies’ independence;  
51. Calls on the Commission to better use the capacity building and the recommendations of agencies in 
the framework of the European Semester, notably when elaborating the Annual Growth Survey and 
macroeconomic indicators; underlines the key role of the agencies in achieving the objectives of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy;  
Independence  
52. Stresses the utmost importance of the agencies’ independence; recalls that the agencies should be able 
to independently execute their mandate and regrets that this is not always the case currently; believes 
that the Commission’s Directorates General should be seen as partners of the agencies, and notes with 
concern that the Commission’s interventions at times cast doubt on the objectivity of the agencies’ 
decisions and performed actions, especially when high risks are involved regarding the safety of 
consumers;  
Accountability  
53. Considers that the democratic accountability of the agencies should be streamlined, mainly as regards 
their way of reporting to the discharge authority (there are, in particular, inconsistencies in the 
presentation of financial information and in the submission of discharge follow-up reports); believes 
that the relationship between Parliament and the agencies would benefit from a stronger and better 
structured system of reporting to Parliament; considers that the current situation is rather fragmented 
and that contact and reporting takes place too often only on an ad-hoc basis;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/381
54. Considers it vital for the parliamentary committees responsible for the agencies to scrutinise their 
annual work programmes as closely as possible and to ensure that they reflect current circumstances 
and political priorities; expects, in that respect, the agencies to cooperate closely with those committees 
and the Commission, in line with the Joint Statement of 19 July 2012 on decentralised agencies, when 
drafting their annual work programmes;  
55. Asks the agencies to publish the minutes of their management board meetings on their websites, in the 
interests of transparency and democratic scrutiny, including by Parliament;  
56. Suggests that a member of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control should be able to attend 
agencies’ management board meetings as an observer;  
Possibilities of closer cooperation and of merging certain agencies  
57. Believes that further synergies should be explored between the European Police College and the 
European Police Office, taking into account the results of the study issued by CEPOL in 2011 
(contract CEPOL/CT/2010/002); notes that in March 2014, the College is to leave its current 
premises in Bramshill (UK); requests that the Commission presents a proposal to the European 
Parliament and the Council for the relocation of the College to The Hague (NL), where the 
European Police Office is currently located, in order for both agencies to be able to share facilities 
and services without jeopardizing their core tasks and autonomy; stresses that a swift decision on the 
relocation of CEPOL would considerably reduce the level of uncertainty which can adversely affect staff 
and recruitment procedures;  
58. Invites the Commission to further explore, together with the European Training Foundation, the 
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, the European Foundation for the 
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and the European Agency for Safety and Health at 
Work, the synergies that exist between those agencies and to report to the discharge authority on their 
possible deeper integration; invites those agencies and the Commission to evaluate whether closer 
cooperation could lead to economies of scale and optimisation of their performance;  
59. Considers that closer coordination should be put in place between certain agencies, in particular as 
regards decisions impacting on the remit of another agency; proposes that the agencies concerned reach 
an agreement among themselves, with the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, in order to avoid 
competing legislation; calls on the agencies, in such cases, to inform the Parliament committees 
responsible at all times;  
Sharing best practices  
60. Stresses the need to ensure that newly-formed agencies (e.g. the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy 
Regulators, the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions 
Authority (EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), all founded in 2011) 
benefit from best practices of older and more experienced ones, in order to avoid recruitment, 
procurement and financial regulation shortcomings;  
61. Notes with satisfaction that newly formed agencies are participating in the Network’s meetings three 
times a year and that those meetings comprise sharing best practices; notes, furthermore, that newly 
established agencies are invited to sub-networks which are set up to discuss issues requiring technical 
knowledge, in particular the sub-network of the Heads of Administration, which meets with the same 
frequency as the Network and deals with issues of recruitment, procurement and financial regulations;  
62. Takes note of the two study visits organised by ESMA which took place at the European Railway 
Agency (ERA) in 2011 and at the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in 2012, in which ESMA 
staff had the opportunity to learn best practices from those well-established agencies; notes the devel ­
opment of frequent contact between ESMA, EIOPA and EBA, sharing experiences, aligning practices and 
profiting from synergies;EN L 308/382 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013
63. Invites the Network to liaise with the Commission in order to explore the possibilities of organising 
common training actions for agencies aimed at overcoming the financial problems identified by the 
Court of Auditors in 2011;  
European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs)  
64. Notes with concern that the provisions of the Financial Regulation are not fully adapted to the ESAs’ 
financing scheme as 55 % to 60 % of their budget is financed by contributions from Member States and 
European Free Trade Association countries; believes that appropriate mechanisms need to be found to 
guarantee the security and financial stability of the ESAs, which are exposed to specific risks on account 
of the mixed nature of their funding; believes that that issue should be addressed, at the latest, in the 
course of the next revision of the Financial Regulation as regards the agencies, and calls on the 
Commission to evaluate this situation and to report on this issue to the discharge authority;  
65. Stresses the importance of adequately matching the allocated budget and available posts on one hand 
and the tasks entrusted to the ESAs on the other hand, as a mismatch may result in unbalanced staffing 
as regards the recruitment of the ESAs’ staff on one hand and the involvement of national experts on 
the other; expresses concern about the fact that the Commission has altered the establishment plans 
proposed by the ESAs without clearly indicating this; urges the Commission to be fully transparent on 
this and other issues;  
66. Notes in this respect the concerns that were raised in the preliminary conclusions of the IMF financial 
sector assessment of December 2012 on the Union, in which it is recommended to increase the 
resources and powers of the ESAs in order to enable them to successfully fulfil their mandates, 
while enhancing their operational independence;  
Gender equality  
67. Stresses the importance of putting in place policies ensuring that women and men are properly 
represented on the agencies’ governing bodies; urges the Network to introduce and promote general 
guidelines regarding best practices on this matter, even where no specific indications are given in the 
agencies’ founding regulations; calls on the agencies’ executive directors, who have ultimate responsi ­
bility for staffing issues, to ensure gender parity among agency staff as a whole and among people in 
positions of responsibility;  
68. Notes with concern that few of the executive director positions in the agencies are held by women; 
given that in most of the agencies, directors are appointed by the management board on the basis of a 
shortlist adopted by the Commission, calls on the management boards of the agencies and on the 
Commission to uphold the principles of gender equality and to take account of the strategy launched 
by the Commission in 2010 to achieve a better gender balance in positions of responsibility; expresses 
concern about the fact that the Common Approach and the Roadmap do not count gender equality 
policies among their objectives, and calls on the Commission to devise specific proposals to address this 
issue;  
69. Notes that it is the responsibility of Members States to select their representatives on the agencies’ 
governing boards; invites Members States to bear in mind the principles of gender equality when 
appointing their representatives to those bodies, and urges the executive directors to raise the 
awareness of the members of the boards on this topic when the chairs and vice-chairs are to be 
elected; notes with satisfaction that two of the current Troika agencies have a woman as chair of 
their governing board;  
Complex IT systems  
70. Stresses the need for the agencies, as well as the Commission, to coordinate and to share best practices 
and experiences in order to overcome the technical and management challenges presented by complex 
information technology (IT) systems which have to operate on a Union-wide basis; finds it strange that 
the Commission charges the agencies fees for using its IT systems, and that those fees are not set 
according to objective parameters, such as the size of the agencies; given that those fees represent a 
considerable burden for the small agencies, and if there is no alternative to charging them, calls on the 
Commission to adapt the fees to the size and financial capacity of the agencies;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/383
71. Draws the Commission’s attention to the difficulties encountered by the agencies with complex IT 
systems like accrual-based accounting (ABAC) and SYSPER2, due to the fact that those systems are 
designed to satisfy the Commission’s needs, rather than those of the agencies; welcomes the actions of 
the sub-networks dealing with the consequences of this problem and, in particular, the Union Agencies 
Information and Communication Technology Network (IT issues) and the Heads of Administration sub- 
network (ABAC and SYSPER2), and invites the Commission to cooperate more closely with the 
agencies on this issue;  
72. Proposes that the agencies be given the possibility of using the human resources software, or any other 
kind of software, of the Commission, instead of having to purchase their own expensive software;  
73. Proposes that, as from the next financial year, in order to facilitate the work of the discharge authority 
as regards the agencies, and given the great number of agencies and the increasing complexity of their 
work and output, Parliament considers, when studying and preparing its opinion on an agency, making 
a reconfiguration that would provide for the appointment of several rapporteurs, as it was already the 
case this year with other institutions;  
74. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the agencies subject to this discharge procedure, the 
Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors.EN L 308/384 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013