RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 10 May 2012  
with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the 
implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2010  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2010,  
— having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College 
for the financial year 2010, together with the College’s replies (  1 ), 
— having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),  
— having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  
— 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 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European 
Police College (CEPOL) (  3 ), and in particular Article 16 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 94 thereof,  
— having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation 
requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,  
— having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of 
Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),  
— having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. 
No CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,  
— having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College 
(Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002),  
— having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and 
Security,  
— having regard to the fourth progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its 
Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,EN L 286/158 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 134.  
( 2 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63.  
( 4 ) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.
— having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the implementation of the European Police College 
MAP for 2010-2014,  
— having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) 
on the third progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 
2010-2014,  
— having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the 
European Parliament’s resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,  
— having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its 
Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010-1 July 2011,  
— 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 opinion of the Committee 
on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0119/2012),  
A. whereas the European Police College (‘the College’) was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 
2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial 
Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the Framework Financial Regulation for agencies,  
B. whereas the Court of Auditors in its reports on the annual accounts of the College for the financial years 
2006, 2007 and 2009, qualified its opinion with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying 
transactions on the grounds that the procurement procedures did not comply with the provisions of the 
Financial Regulation,  
C. whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 
2008, added an emphasis of matter to its opinion on the reliability of the accounts, without expressly 
qualifying it, and qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,  
D. whereas in its Decision of 7 October 2010 Parliament refused to grant the Director of the College 
discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2008,  
E. whereas in its Decision of 10 May 2011 Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the 
Director of the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009 (  1 ) and then 
granted it in its Decision of 25 October 2011 (  2 ), 
F. whereas, for the first time since the College became an agency, the Court of Auditors, in its report on 
the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2010, expressed no reservations about the 
reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,  
G. whereas in its report on the College’s MAP for 2010-2014 the Court of Auditors stated that the College 
is progressing according to the milestones established in its MAP,  
H. whereas in its note of 4 July 2011 to the Director of the College the IAS stated that, although the 
description in the progress report on the implementation of the College’s MAP remains fairly general, it 
gives a clear overview of the status of the different milestones and should thereby serve as a satisfactory 
basis for informing different stakeholders,EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/159  
( 1 ) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 260.  
( 2 ) OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 17.
I. whereas by Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 the Commission granted a derogation to the 
College from the provisions of Article 74b of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,  
J. whereas the budget of the College for 2010 was EUR 7 800 000 compared to EUR 8 800 000 in 2009, 
which represents a decrease of 11,4 %; whereas the contribution of the Union to the budget of the 
College for 2010 was EUR 7 800 000 (  1 ), 
Budget and Financial Management — General Observations  
1. Notes the College’s claim that the financial year 2010 was characterised by a lack of sufficient financial 
resources with a cut of EUR 1 000 000 in the Union contribution to the College’s budget; is surprised 
by this view, particularly in this time of crisis, as good management ensures correct and cost-efficient 
spending of the budget available and considering that 31,6 % of the College’s 2010 budget was carried 
over to 2011;  
2. Acknowledges however from the Commission that in 2009 the total Union contribution to the College 
amounted to EUR 8 800 000 out of which EUR 7 800 000 was financed from the 2009 budget and 
that the remaining balance of EUR 1 000 000 was actually financed from the 2007 assigned revenue 
stemming from the recovery of the College’s surplus for the year 2007; notes from the Commission 
that for 2010 it proposed to reduce the 2010 Union contribution to the College to the level of the 
2009 voted appropriations, i.e. EUR 7 800 000 due to the 2008 low budget execution rate; encourages, 
therefore, the College to introduce a clear distinction between the different components of the Union 
contribution to the College’s budget in its yearly final annual accounts;  
3. Takes note from the College’s final annual accounts for the financial year 2010 that some deficiencies 
occurred in the preparation of individual budgets and commitments for courses and seminars which 
resulted in 2010 appropriations having been committed and paid to cover 2009 expenditure; reminds 
the College that this is at odds with the principle of annuality; calls on the College to take action in 
order to avoid a repeat of similar deficiencies in the future;  
4. Notes from the College’s Annual Activity Report 2010 that 99,56 % of the commitment appropriations 
have been committed; notes also that 46 % of the payment appropriations have been used but that the 
final figures for use of Title III (Operational Expenditure) were only due to be available at the end of 
2011; takes note that the College’s 2010 final annual accounts indicate a rate of spent payment 
appropriations of 59,12 % in 2010;  
5. Acknowledges the measures taken by the new management and governance structure of the College to 
tackle its deficiencies in response to Parliament’s request for action, following the serious irregularities 
in the implementation of the budget for 2009;  
6. Draws attention to the fact that even though the Court of Auditors considered the transactions 
underlying the College’s annual accounts to be legal and regular, it also highlighted that, in respect 
of expenditure for organising courses and seminars, there was a lack of rigour in the College’s process 
for approving cost claims related to such activities, particularly concerning the completeness of 
supporting evidence; notes that in the reply from the College, mandatory requirements to submit a 
fully signed list of participants when submitting financial reports and cost claims were established by 
Decision 11/2011/GB of the Governing Board of the College of 10 March 2011;  
7. Takes note that, in accordance with Decision 11/2011/GB, the rules on reimbursement for the activities 
of the College have been revised to a large extent and that different measures for the strict implemen ­
tation of the financial regulations and a rigorously disciplined approach concerning eligible costs, 
including those on the mandatory reporting, have been clarified;EN L 286/160 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010, p. 1047.
8. Deplores the fact that before the adoption of Decision 34/2010/GB of the Governing Board of the 
College of 29 September 2010, the cut-off dates for reimbursement of costs were not enforced, so that 
there was no substantial improvement in adhering to these cut-off dates; recalls that exceeding cut-off 
dates is one of the main factors hindering sound financial management; takes note of the fact that, in 
accordance with Decision 34/2010/GB, no reimbursement will take place of claims received after the 
cut-off date; asks the College to keep the discharge authority informed of the implementation of 
Decision 34/2010/GB;  
9. Acknowledges the statement by the College that the Commission cut the College’s 2010 budget by 
EUR 1 000 000 but stresses that the amount allocated for 2010 is the same as for 2009;  
Carry-over appropriations  
10. Notes from the College’s final annual accounts for the financial year 2010 that EUR 2 469 984,20 of 
the 2010 committed credits, which represents 31,6 % of the College’s 2010 budget, were carried 
forward to 2011; reminds the College that the situation is at odds with the principle of annuality;  
11. Regrets that the Court of Auditors does not mention the College’s appropriations carried forward in its 
report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2010;  
12. Is concerned that even though the Court of Auditors has been able to obtain reasonable assurances that 
the annual accounts of the College for the 2010 financial year are, in all material aspects, reliable, the 
Court of Auditors observed that more than EUR 1 600 000, equivalent to 48 % of the appropriations 
carried over from 2009, had to be cancelled in 2010; reminds the College that this situation is at odds 
with the budgetary principle of annuality and can be reduced by better programming and monitoring 
the implementation of its budget to minimise carry-over of appropriations; calls therefore on the 
College to take effective action in this respect;  
13. Takes, none the less, note of the College’s reply which stated that, to avoid a repeat of the situation 
described by the Court of Auditors, the carry forward of 2010 appropriations was subject to strict 
criteria to minimise cancellations in 2011;  
14. Notes from the College that in 2010 it introduced weekly financial management meetings to improve 
budgetary implementation and control and that in June 2011, all open commitments were reviewed to 
better monitor the budget consumption and optimise the 2011 budget implementation; calls therefore 
on the Court of Auditors and the IAS to assure Parliament on the College’s effective improvements on 
this issue and to indicate that all instruments for programming and monitoring are firmly in place;  
Procurement procedures  
15. Notes that on 8 June 2010 the College adopted a procurement manual for internal use as requested by 
Parliament in its discharges to the College for 2008; notes also that this manual entered into force on 
1 July 2010 and that a public procurement coordinator has been appointed;  
Completeness of the internal recording of mission expenses  
16. Calls on the College to inform the discharge authority of the effective implementation of the IAS ‘very 
important’ recommendation on the completeness of the internal recording of mission expenses;  
The College’s activities  
17. Notes from the Court of Auditors that expenditure for organising courses and seminars represents a 
significant part of the College’s budget; acknowledges that there was a lack of rigour in the College’s 
process for approving cost claims related to such activities, particularly with regard to the completeness 
of supporting evidence;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/161
18. Takes, however, note from the College’s statement that it has improved reporting and control on its 
activities and has revised the process for approving cost claims and their supporting evidence, and 
notably with the:  
— establishment of mandatory requirements to submit fully signed participant’s lists when submitting 
financial reports and cost claims,  
— revision of the rules for reimbursement of College activities, which have been clarified,  
— strict enforcement of the cut-off date after which a reimbursement claim will not be accepted which 
was introduced on 29 September 2010,  
— organisation of a new training course for course managers to further improve the controls on 
courses as well as the quality of the payment files,  
— implementation in 2011 of  ex-post  verifications of the College’s courses,  
— verification of four 2010 activities in Sweden and six in the United Kingdom, of which one was 
related to a 2010 activity and five to 2011 activities,  
calls on the IAS to provide the discharge authority with a thorough evaluation of these changes 
introduced by the College;  
19. Acknowledges that Commission Decision C(2011)4680 granted consent to the College’s request to 
modify its Financial Regulation by introducing an Article (Article 74c) which includes a derogation 
from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 concerning the exclusion for tender for the selection of 
educational experts in order to use experts from national police training colleges;  
Errors in the accounts  
20. Calls on the College to update Parliament on the level of implementation of the new 16 Internal 
Control Standards (ICS) of the Commission which were adopted by the Governing Board (GB) of the 
College replacing the former ICS;  
Appropriations used to finance private expenditure  
21. Acknowledges that an external  ex-post  check on appropriations used to finance private expenditure 
during 2007 and 2008 has been carried out and that the external reviewers considered that no further 
funds are recoverable in respect of this matter; notes from the College that the Recovery Order 
requiring the former Director to return the sum of GBP 2 014,94 (EUR 2 196,72) was cashed in 
December 2011; calls on the College to continue the recovery process until all funds are fully 
recovered;  
The College’s MAP for 2010-2014  
22. Acknowledges that the IAS assessed the implementation of the College’s Multi-annual Plan (MAP) 
2010-2014 as was requested by the discharge authority; notes that by the end of September 2010, 
19 of the 44 milestones had been completed whereas 18 milestones were on track with regard to the 
planned timetable and another 7 still await the initial start of implementation;  
23. Takes also note of the IAS statement that the description of some items in the MAP lack clarity and 
that the progress reporting is not always accurate enough to allow a clear understanding of what the 
individual milestones imply in terms of concrete actions; acknowledges moreover that the IAS identified 
overlap between some of the milestones which makes it difficult to assess the ultimate overall status of 
the related actions; acknowledges the College’s statement that the MAP was updated in accordance with 
the IAS recommendations and the improvements incorporated in the third progress report which was 
approved by the GB on 8 December 2010; calls on the IAS to confirm that the updated progress report 
on the College’s MAP reflects adequately their recommendations;EN L 286/162 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
Internal audit  
24. Acknowledges from the IAS that the very important recommendation on the completeness of the 
internal recording of mission expenses has been reported as implemented by the College and is 
currently under the IAS review; calls on the College and the IAS to inform the discharge authority 
of the results of the review;  
25. Takes note that the IAS performed an IT risk self-assessment with the objective of identifying and 
evaluating the key IT risks at the College; notes that the IAS identified the main risks in relation to: IT 
strategy, e-net system, data management and dependence upon individuals; calls therefore on the 
College to take appropriate action to address and prevent these risks;  
26. Notes that the internal audit function (IAC), advisory body for the GB, did not find any material 
mistakes in the College’s accounts for 2010 in its audit;  
Governance and structural deficiencies  
27. Underlines that the governance costs of the College are high compared to its activities; welcomes, 
therefore, the efforts of the College to reduce its governance expenditure at its 25th GB meeting of June 
2011, when it was agreed that all GB committees should be abolished by 2012 and that all GB 
working groups should be critically analysed;  
28. Notes, also, from the College that the following measures are being implemented in the area of 
governance:  
— from 2012, the GB will only meet twice a year while urgent decisions in between meetings are to 
be taken by written procedure and discussed during web meetings,  
— the GB will focus only on the tasks that have been assigned to it by the College’s Founding Decision 
while the other tasks that previously overloaded the GB are to be taken over by the Director,  
— each Member State is encouraged to send a maximum of two delegates to each GB meeting,  
— the College is to take care of travel arrangements for participants eligible for reimbursement to 
ensure that the most economical means are used in order to cut out the reimbursement process 
after the meeting;  
29. Awaits with interest the submission by the Commission of the proposal for a change of legal basis for 
the College, as well as the outcome of the negotiations between Parliament and the Council;  
30. Notes moreover that the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the College concluded that 
there is a case for the College’s relocation;  
31. Welcomes Decision 24/2011/GB of the Governing Board of the College of 15 June 2011 disbanding 
existing committees as of 1 January 2012, thus reducing the overlap between different structures; calls 
on the GB to take drastic decisions concerning the existing working groups; recalls that Article 10(10) 
of Decision 2005/681/JHA provides that the GB may decide, ‘in cases of strict necessity’, to establish 
working groups to make recommendations and to develop and propose any other advisory tasks 
deemed necessary by the GB;  
32. Takes note of the response from the College that its Rules of Procedure were amended to limit the 
number of regular meetings of the GB to one per presidency and to restrict the size of national 
delegations, as each Member State is encouraged to send a maximum of two delegates to each meeting;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/163
33. Notes that the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the College should continue 
to be based on its performance throughout the year;  
34. Draws attention to its recommendations from previous discharge reports, as set out in the Annex to 
this resolution;  
35. Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a 
horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2012 (  1 ) on the performance, financial management and 
control of the agencies.EN L 286/164 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0164 (see page 388 of this Official Journal).
ANNEX  
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OVER THE PAST YEARS  
European Police College  2006  2007  2008  2009  
Performance  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  — Is concerned that the Court of Auditors 
identified severe short comings in the 
administrative and financial rules governing 
expenditure on the organisation of courses and 
seminars, mainly due to the revised College 
Financial Regulation never entered force 
— Recommends that the College provide direct 
access to its detailed budget  
Budgetary and financial 
management  — Budget appropriations were 
not used in accordance with 
the principle of sound 
financial management 
— The system of procurement 
did not comply with the 
provisions of the Financial 
Regulation 
— The College did not establish 
the necessary systems and 
procedures to enable it to 
prepare a financial report in 
compliance with the 
requirements of the 
framework Financial 
Regulation applicable to the 
Agencies 
— The College’s Financial 
Regulation foresees the need 
for detailed rules for the 
implementation of the 
regulation  — The Agency does not comply with the 
principle of unity and accuracy of the budget 
(The budget did not include a contribution of 
EUR 1 500 000 received from the 
Commission in 2007 to implement a MEDA 
programme 
— The Agency does not comply with the 
principle of transparency 
— The high level of carry-overs (EUR 1 700 000) 
and cancellations of appropriations shows 
difficulties in budget management 
— Neither the provisional accounts nor the 
report on the budgetary and financial 
management had been prepared 
— The College’s Financial Regulation foresees the 
need for detailed rules for the implementation 
of the regulation 
— The system of procurement did not comply 
with the provisions of the Financial Regulation 
— Cases were identified where appropriations 
were used to finance the private expenditure 
of some of the College’s staff  — The Agency did not comply 
with the principle of annuality 
(i.e. more than EUR 2 700 000 
of the 2008 payment 
appropriations had to be 
carried forward) 
— Weaknesses in the 
programming and the 
monitoring of the 
implementation of the budget  — More than EUR 3 800 000 of the 2009 
appropriations (43 % of total budget) was 
carried forward to 2010. 
— 46 % of appropriations carried over from 2008 
had to be cancelled, indicates severe and 
recurrent weaknesses in the programming and 
monitoring of the implementation of the 
budget, at odds with the principle of annuality 
— For 2008, 31 % of budget had to be carried 
over. 
— Significant delays and errors in the preparation 
of the 2009 provisional accountsEN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/165
European Police College  2006  2007  2008  2009  
Procurement procedure  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  Concern with the persistent lack of compliance with 
the Financial Regulation with regard to Public 
Procurement rules. Significant amount of the total 
college’s budget contains irregularities.  
Human resources  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  — Several weaknesses with regard to staff 
selection. 
— Finds unacceptable: 
— the thresholds that candidates had to meet 
were generally fixed after the evaluation and 
ranking of the candidates, 
— questions for interviews were often prepared 
after the examination of applications, 
— the documentation of procedures was 
inadequate 
— Is concerned about practices which are not 
allowed under Staff Regulations of the 
Officials of the EU or are illegal  
Internal audit  n.a.  — Absence of internal control standards and 
ineffective budgetary monitoring 
— Cases were identified where appropriations 
were used to finance the private expenditure 
of some of the College’s staff  — The audit of a sample of 
commitments showed that, in 
three cases, there was no audit 
trail to retrace the financial 
execution 
— No external control on these 
cases has been already carried 
out Notes the discharge in respect of the 
implementation of the budget of the College should 
be further based on its performance throughout the 
yearEN L 286/166 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012