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 general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, 
Section I — European Parliament  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (  1 ), 
— having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 
473 – C7-0257/2011) (  2 ), 
— having regard to the report on budgetary and financial management — Section I — European 
Parliament — Financial year 2010 (  3 ), 
— having regard to the Internal Auditor’s annual report for the financial year 2010,  
— having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget 
concerning the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (  4 ), 
— having regard to the statement of assurance (  5 ) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and 
regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 
pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  
— having regard to Article 314(10) and Article 318 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty,  
— 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 (  6 ) (the Financial Regulation), 
and in particular Articles 145, 146 and 147 thereof,  
— having regard to Article 13 of the Internal Rules on the implementation of the European Parliament’s 
budget (  7 ), 
— having regard to Article 147(1) of the Financial Regulation, which requires each Union institution to 
take all appropriate steps to act on the observations accompanying the European Parliament’s discharge 
decision,  
— having regard to its Resolution of 10 March 2009 on the guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure – 
Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX (  8 ), 
— having regard to its Resolution of 5 May 2009 on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of 
Parliament for the financial year 2010 (  9 ),EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/3  
( 1 ) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.  
( 2 ) OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ C 167, 7.6.2011, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.  
( 5 ) OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.  
( 6 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 7 ) PE 349.540/Bur/ann/def.  
( 8 ) OJ C 87 E, 1.4.2010, p. 327.  
( 9 ) OJ C 212 E, 5.8.2010, p. 244.
— having regard to Rules 77 and 80(3) of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,  
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0120/2012),  
A. whereas the audit of the Court of Auditors stated that, as regards administrative expenditure in 2010, all 
the institutions satisfactorily operated the supervisory and control systems required by the Financial 
Regulation and 93 % of the 58 payments audited were free from material error,  
B. whereas the Secretary-General certified, on 16 June 2011, his reasonable assurance that Parliament’s 
budget has been implemented in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and that 
the control framework put in place provides the necessary guarantees as to the legality and regularity of 
the underlying operations,  
C. whereas some issues raised in the course of the discussions on the 2010 discharge in the Committee on 
Budgetary Control went beyond the specific 2010 issues, and were included in wide-ranging questions 
from the Committee, this Resolution remains principally focussed on the budget implementation and 
discharge for the financial year 2010, whilst acknowledging that approaches to budgetary matters are a 
subject for wider discussion particularly in the working group being established to consider European 
Parliament costs and possible savings, and in line with the 2013 budget guidelines adopted on 
8 February 2012, seeking to make significant long-term savings, through an independent evaluation 
of the European Parliament budget leading to proposals by the end of 2012 followed by their rapid 
implementation,  
Budget implementation challenges in 2010  
1. Points out that implementation of the budget in 2010 was challenging as that was the first full year of 
operations after the 2009 European elections and took place in the context of continuing financial 
problems in the Union;  
2. Observes that Parliament’s budget (final appropriations totalling EUR 1 616 760 399, compared to 
EUR 1 529 970 930 in 2009) was just under a fifth (19,99 %; 19,67 % in 2009, therefore below the 
usual 20 % share) of Heading V (Administration expenditure) in the general budget of the European 
Union for 2010;  
3. Notes the reply given by Parliament’s Secretariat to the effect that the annual cost of Parliament’s seat 
in Strasbourg stood at precisely EUR 51 500 000 in 2010, comprising EUR 33 500 000 in infra ­
structure costs and EUR 18 000 000 in operating costs for the 12 monthly part-sessions; points 
out that these official figures are far lower than the estimates previously put forward, which ranged 
from EUR 169 000 000 to EUR 203 000 000; noting however that in the 2006 estimates the Admin ­
istration calculated the annual saving with a single place of work at EUR 204 million and in 2010 at 
EUR 180 million, a lower figure after the purchase of the Strasbourg buildings and information 
technology improvements, and recalls that in its 2013 estimates, the European Parliament voted 
429-184 in favour of a single seat to save costs;  
4. Notes that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty increased Parliament’s powers, activities and 
legislative workload, requiring major changes to its organisation and working methods in order to 
build on legislative excellence and to continue the preparations for the enlargement of the Union to 
include Croatia; further notes that, in order to respond to the new challenges, measures were adopted 
to improve cost efficiency through increased productivity, staff redeployments and improved working 
methods;  
5. Notes that the adoption of an amending budget (No 1/2010 adopted on 19 May 2010) of 
EUR 9 397 164 was necessary to finance additional expenditure resulting directly from the entry 
into force of the Lisbon Treaty; further notes that this amending budget strengthened, in particular, 
two budget items (item 1 2 0 0 ‘Remuneration and allowances’ and item 4 2 2 0/01 ‘Parliamentary 
assistance: local assistants’) in order to enhance assistance to Members for carrying out their increased 
legislative tasks; regrets however that this increase was not substantially reduced by further-reaching 
savings;EN L 286/4 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
6. Notes that the year saw consolidation and further modernisation of the administration, with a stronger 
focus on core activities, restructuring of services, better use of modern technologies and increased 
interinstitutional cooperation;  
7. Points out that 2010 was the first year in which the new Statute for Members and the Statute for 
Assistants (both effective as of 14 July 2009) were implemented in full with the entry into force of a 
set of modifications to the Implementing Measures for both Statutes, proposed by the Temporary 
Evaluation Group, and that these represented significant additional tasks for Parliament’s adminis ­
tration;  
8. Notes the adoption, by the Bureau, on 24 March 2010, of a medium-term ICT Strategy (and in 
particular the Knowledge Management System — KMS — forming part of it) and a medium-term 
building policy, both of which have a substantial financial dimension;  
Report on budgetary and financial management  
9. Notes that, in 2010, Parliament received revenue amounting to EUR 243 094 204 (EUR 141 250 059 
in 2009), which included EUR 110 298 523 in assigned revenue;  
Presentation of Parliament’s accounts  
10. Takes note of the figures on the basis of which Parliament’s accounts for the financial year 2010 were 
closed, namely:  
(EUR)  
(a) Available appropriations  
appropriations for 2010:  1 616 760 399  
non-automatic carry-overs from financial year 2009:  10 100 000  
automatic carry-overs from financial year 2009:  180 265 823  
appropriations corresponding to assigned revenue for 2010:  110 298 523  
carry-overs corresponding to assigned revenue from 2009:  20 637 870  
Total:  1 938 062 615  
(b) Utilisation of appropriations in the financial year 2010  
commitments:  1 772 219 308  
payments made:  1 506 555 191  
appropriations carried forward automatically including those arising from assigned 
revenue:  341 046 482  
appropriations carried forward non-automatically:  9 240 000  
appropriations cancelled:  80 650 726  
(c) Budgetary receipts  
received in 2010:  243 094 204  
(d) Total balance sheet at 31 December 2010  1 612 914 353  
11. Notes that, in 2010, 96 % (93 % in 2009) of the final appropriations were committed, with a 
cancellation rate of 4 % (6,7 % in 2009), and that, as in previous years, a very high level of 
budget implementation was achieved;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/5
12. Notes however the significant carry-overs into 2010 (EUR 190 365 823 (  1 ), resulting, to a large extent, 
from the particular nature of the 2009 election year, and calls for improved planning of expenditure 
that will take this into account in the run up to future European elections;  
13. Notes that this overall high level of implementation is partly due to two targeted transfers made 
before the end of the financial year 2010 (EUR 9 240 000 for the purchase of a Europe House in 
Sofia and EUR 10 923 000 for four major IT projects); welcomes the fact that for the second time no 
mopping-up transfers took place between 2010 and 2011; urges however, its administration to 
pursue the objective of better and clearer budget planning and discipline in the future and notes 
that to put buildings, IT or any other important expenditure in the budget would provide full financial 
clarity; believes that all significant expenditure should be fully planned for in the annual budget and 
not arise as a result of a need to mop-up underspends;  
Statement of assurance by the Secretary-General  
14. Welcomes the Secretary-General’s statement dated 16 June 2011 in his capacity as Principal Auth ­
orising Officer by delegation, concerning the authorising officers’ annual activity reports for 2010, in 
which he certifies that he has a reasonable assurance that Parliament’s budget has been implemented 
in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and that the control framework put 
in place provides the necessary guarantees as to the legality and regularity of the underlying oper ­
ations;  
Annual report on contracts awarded  
15. Notes that central services established, on the basis of information provided by authorising depart ­
ments, the annual report (  2 ) to the budgetary authority on contracts awarded in 2010 and further 
notes the following breakdown of all contracts awarded in 2009 and 2010:  
Type of contract  2010  2009  
Number  Percentage  Number  Percentage  
Services  143  67 %  157  62 %  
Supplies  40  19 %  56  22 %  
Works  27  12 %  34  14 %  
Building  4  2 %  5  2 %  
Total  214  100 %  252  100 %  
Type of contract  2010  2009  
Value 
(EUR)  Percentage  Value 
(EUR)  Percentage  
Services  149 463 916  63 %  415 344 963  75 %  
Supplies  45 467 211  19 %  34 980 727  6 %  
Works  22 128 145  9 %  36 045 314  6 %  
Building  22 269 303  9 %  70 394 138  13 %  
Total  239 328 575  100 %  556 765 142  100 %  
(Annual report on the contracts awarded by the European Parliament, 2010, p. 5)EN L 286/6 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) Automatic carry-overs: EUR 180 265 823, non-automatic carry-overs: EUR 10 100 000.  
( 2 ) Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities /cont/201109/20110913ATT26546/ 
20110913ATT26546EN.pdf
16. Notes the breakdown of contracts awarded in 2010 and 2009 by type of procedure used as follows:  
Type of procedure  2010  2009  
Number  Percentage  Number  Percentage  
Open  72  34 %  73  29 %  
Restricted  5  2 %  13  5 %  
Negotiated  137  64 %  166  66 %  
Total  214  100 %  252  100 %  
Type of procedure  2010  2009  
Value (EUR)  Percentage  Value (EUR)  Percentage  
Open  143 603 024  60 %  415 996 418  75 %  
Restricted  2 129 576  1 %  9 458 434  2 %  
Negotiated  93 595 975  39 %  131 310 290  23 %  
Total  239 328 575  100 %  556 765 142  100 %  
(Annual report on the contracts awarded by the European Parliament, 2010, pp. 6-7)  
Exceptional negotiated procedures  
17. Welcomes the fact that, starting with 2010, all Directorates General give details in an annex attached 
to their Annual Activity Reports on the contracts awarded using the exceptional negotiated procedure, 
giving the reasons why this procedure was used, along with other information required in paragraph 
50 of the Resolution of 5 May 2010 (  1 ) on discharge in respect of the implementation of the 
European Union general budget for the financial year 2008, Section I — European Parliament;  
18. Acknowledges as positive the reversed trend in 2010 (as compared to 2009 and previous years) in the 
number of exceptional negotiated procedures, in respect of all contracts with a value greater than 
EUR 25 000 (  2 ), as shown in the following breakdown:  
General Directorate  2010  2009  
Number  % of DG’s total 
contracts  Number  % of DG’s total 
contracts  
DG PRES  5  50,00 %  14  53,85 %  
DG IPOL  2  5,56 %  0  0,00 %  
DG EXPO  0  0,00 %  1  50,00 %  
DG COMM  8  14,81 %  29  42,03 %  
DG PERS  0  0,00 %  1  16,67 %  
DG INLO  24  30,00 %  37  38,14 %  
DG INTE  3  27,27 %  3  21,43 %EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/7  
( 1 ) OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 3.  
( 2 ) Annual report on the contracts awarded by the European Parliament, 2010, paragraphs 38 and 39.
General Directorate  2010  2009  
Number  % of DG’s total 
contracts  Number  % of DG’s total 
contracts  
DG TRAD  0  0,00 %  0  0,00 %  
DG ITEC  7  53,85 %  4  36,36 %  
DG FINS  0  0,00 %  0  0,00 %  
Legal Service  0  0,00 %  0  0,00 %  
Parliament, total  49  22,90 %  89  35,32 %  
(Annual report on the contracts awarded by the European Parliament, 2010, p. 11)  
19. Calls on the Directorates General which still have high figures, in particular DG INLO, to further 
reduce the number/proportion of such procedures; urges the administration to continue the strict 
scrutiny of these procedures, in particular with respect to possible conflicts of interest, and to apply 
intensified and dissuasive sanctions for any irregularity found; calls on the Secretary-General to report 
on a six-monthly basis to the Committee on Budgetary Control on progress made;  
20. Welcomes the establishment by DG PRES of a procurement section within the Unit for Planning, 
Budgetary Management and Contracts as this will increase the transparency of the public procedures;  
Annual Report of the Court of Auditors for 2010  
General findings  
21. Welcomes the fact that the audit of the Court of Auditors found the payments as a whole to be free 
from material error and that the Court of Auditors found no material weaknesses when assessing the 
compliance of the supervisory and control systems with the Financial Regulation;  
Management of the subsidy scheme for visitors’ groups  
22. Notes the Court of Auditors’ finding that the procedures in place in 2010, which did not require 
evidence of actual travel costs and which included cash payments to group leaders, presented a risk of 
overpayment and limited the possibility of applying internal controls to such payments, and takes 
note of the adoption of recent changes to this system; points out however that Members have still the 
option to request cash payment to groups of visitors; requests the Secretary-General to seek the 
opinion of the Court of Auditors on the amended rules;  
Employment of contract agents  
23. Notes with disappointment that the Court of Auditors found that, in four out of the five, i.e. in no less 
than 80 %, of the cases audited, the documentation relating to the examination of applications, the 
performance of interviews and the decisions made to select contract staff was incomplete, without any 
adverse consequences for the staff involved and therefore without incentives for them to improve the 
situation; agrees with the Court of Auditors’ recommendation that full documentation for internal 
control purposes should henceforth be ensured;  
Procurement  
24. Regrets that the Court of Auditors found errors, inconsistencies and other weaknesses in the 
procurement procedures of Parliament that it audited; points out the recent measures taken to 
improve these procedures and encourages its administration to make further improvements in this 
area of work; welcomes development of the IT tool Webcontracts, established in 2010, which allows 
contract work to be carried out online;  
25. Calls on the Bureau to reconsider all control mechanisms for public procurement in order to 
guarantee the most competitive prices for the goods and services that are offered;EN L 286/8 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
Organisation and functioning of political groups  
26. Notes the finding of the Court of Auditors in relation to carry-overs of unused appropriations by 
political groups and the division of European election years into two halves for the purposes of 
calculating permitted carry-over; takes the view that, in order to avoid any future recurrence of the 
difficulties which arose at the beginning of 2010, the whole of any future election year should be used 
to calculate carry-over for political groups which do not cease to function following an election;  
27. Notes that while it has been claimed that written questions from the public are in general answered 
within two weeks, there is at present no system in place whereby questions from Members to the 
President or the Secretary-General are answered in the same amount of time;  
Follow-up by the Secretary-General to the 2009 discharge Resolution  
28. Notes with satisfaction the promptness and extent of written answers in respect of the 2009 discharge 
Resolution provided to the Committee on Budgetary Control on 6 October 2011 and the quality of 
the exchange of views between the Secretary-General and the Committee on Budgetary Control during 
the follow-up of the 2009 discharge exercise on 11 October 2011;  
29. Welcomes the various responses to a number of requests made in the above-mentioned Resolution 
and looks forward to the completion of the follow-up of the following requests expressed in that 
Resolution:  
(i) to make a comprehensive evaluation covering changes in staff as well as the development of 
expenditure in all services concerned by the implementation of the new Statutes (of Members and 
of Assistants) and to forward this to its competent committees, together with an action plan and 
an assessment of direct and indirect financial implications for Parliament’s budget for the coming 
five years, including the provision to be made for possible extra office space, removal and costs 
for renovations/alterations (paragraph 7);  
(ii) to receive information on the costs of externalising the computing centres in comparison to 
previous costs in its forthcoming activity report (paragraph 37);  
(iii) to take a formal decision on the abolition of the Prize for Journalism (paragraph 93);  
(iv) to report on the total amount of savings that were made including those as a result of further 
rationalisation of the missions between the three working places (paragraph 102);  
(v) to propose strict rules applicable to all Members to ensure that the General Expenditure allowance 
is transparent in all cases and that it is only used for the purposes for which it is intended;  
30. Requests the Secretary-General to report to Parliament’s competent committee, by 31 October 2012 
at the latest, on the action taken or to be taken;  
The Internal Auditor’s annual report  
31. Welcomes the fact that a firm of external assessors has certified that the Internal Audit Service is at 
the highest level of conformity with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of 
Internal Auditing;  
32. Notes that, at the competent committee’s meeting held on 24 January 2012, the Internal Auditor 
presented his annual report signed 15 July 2011 and explained that, in 2010, he performed the 
following audit work on Parliament’s administration:  
— follow-up to the audits of the individual entitlements of staff;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/9
— audit of Visitors’ Groups;  
— follow-up to the audit of staff mission expenses;  
— follow-up to the review of internal controls over long-term contracts;  
— follow-up to the review of IT Governance — Planning and Organisation;  
— audit of the establishment of the Payroll;  
— audit of the Public Procurement Process and of Contract Implementation in DG ITEC;  
— follow-up to the audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance;  
33. Notes and supports the views expressed by the Internal Auditor concerning the need:  
— to complete all overdue actions as soon as possible, and in particular the critical ones, in order to 
improve DG Personnel’s governance processes, control environment and control activities in the 
area of individual entitlements of staff and to complete the four outstanding actions in the field of 
staff mission expenses identified in Internal Audit Report 10/04 of 6 May 2011 on the follow-up 
to the original 2008 audit;  
— for changes to the financial provisions of the internal rules governing the reception of Visitors’ 
Groups in order to align financing more closely with costs actually incurred by the visitors;  
— to complete the 20 overdue actions in the field of IT governance;  
Nature and purpose of internal audit reports  
34. Refers to its comments, contained in previous discharge resolutions, on internal audit reports; 
recognises that internal audit reports serve as tools for improvements in systems and performance, 
and can only be properly interpreted when changes and results are completed, based on their recom ­
mendations; points out however that the ongoing review of the Financial Regulation deals with the 
question of availability of these reports on request taking on board the ruling of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union on that matter;  
MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENT’S ADMINISTRATION  
Activity reports by the Directors-General  
35. Observes with satisfaction that all Directors-General were able to give an unreserved statement of 
assurance in respect of the implementation of the budget by their services in 2010; is aware that the 
activity reports are an internal management tool the primary purpose of which is to give the 
Secretary-General a clear overview of the workings of the administration, and in particular, of any 
weaknesses;  
Risk Manager  
36. Notes with satisfaction that the Risk Manager took up his appointment on 1 June 2010 and reports 
directly to the Secretary-General; welcomes the publication on 16 December 2011 of a Risk 
Management Manual and reiterates its request that its competent committee receive the Risk 
Manager’s annual activity report for 2010 and be kept informed of developments in the implemen ­
tation of Parliament’s new risk management policy;  
37. Requests that its competent committee be informed before the end of September 2012 on the 
approach and action taken in order to identify and manage sensitive posts;EN L 286/10 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
DG Presidency (DG PRES)  
Security  
38. Notes a slight decrease in the budget devoted to security from EUR 45 980 000 to EUR 45 590 000 
between 2009 and 2010; welcomes the continued decreasing trend in the 2011 budget expenditure 
(final appropriations: EUR 42 830 000) compared to 2010 and the adoption by the Bureau in July 
2011 of the Global Security Concept providing more modern and efficient security for Parliament;  
39. Reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to make it mandatory for Members to show their badges 
when going in and out of Parliament’s premises; suggests that Member’s badges are also submitted to 
electronic control;  
40. Insists that reinforcing the security of Parliament’s buildings and their immediate surroundings must 
be given the highest priority; requests that as part of this work security in the car parks should be 
improved, and that the access to the parts of the buildings containing Members’ offices in Parliament 
should be controlled;  
41. Stresses the fact that thefts occurred in Members’ offices while they were locked which proves that 
there is a low level of office security; calls on the Secretary-General to take urgent measures in order 
to improve the current situation;  
42. Is concerned about the low security level in the parking premises of Parliament; notes that several cars 
have been intentionally damaged in the car park in Brussels; calls on the Bureau to take the appro ­
priate actions to improve the situation;  
43. Reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to come forward, by 30 June 2012, with proposals for a 
more effective, secure and fraudproof signing system (including an examination of the opening hours 
for signing), and in particular for a possible future electronic signing system for Members both for 
signing documents (such as amendments) and for recording their presence by digital signature, even 
though it is aware that only minimal impact is to be expected in terms of costs or savings;  
44. Notes with satisfaction that following the decision of the Bureau on 5 July 2010 the internalisation of 
the accreditation services is now being finalised; expects the new accreditation system to provide an 
improved and more efficient service; considers that Parliament’s security must continue to be 
improved and modernised, and, to that end, professionalised in the proper way, primarily by 
means of specific selection and recruitment procedures and the necessary in-service, further, and 
refresher training; looks forward with interest to the development of the new global concept of 
security, especially the differentiation between ‘zoning’ areas, which will bring a substantial 
improvement, not least as regards the security problems concerning Members’ offices;  
Restructuring  
45. Notes that there was a major restructuring of DG PRES in 2010; welcomes the centralisation of 
financial functions, of the planning and management of procurement and of security within a 
Resource Directorate created in March 2010;  
DG Internal Policies (DG IPOL) and External Policies (DG EXPO)  
46. Recalls the political importance of delegations in Parliament’s work inside and outside the Union; 
notes, however, the apparently wide disparity in costs per Member per day (ranging from EUR 1 400 
to EUR 5 300) on different delegations, particularly those outside the Union; calls on its Bureau, in 
collaboration with all DGs concerned, to develop principles for a more economic and uniform cost 
structure for delegation visits, in particular taking account of their political importance and duration, 
and the optimum ratio of Members to staff; calls for the development of an IT budget consolidation 
system which will give detailed information of the budget for each delegation and will improve the 
management of spending; calls in future, where travel is undertaken by delegations, for a detailed 
statement of costs for all those travelling;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/11
DG Communication (DG COMM)  
47. Is concerned that, except in relation to the Legislative Observatory costs, budget line 3 2 4 2 (Pub ­
lication, information and participation in public events) is not sufficiently transparent; considers that 
expenditure in the sub-item 3 2 4 2/01 in particular should be itemised to improve transparency in 
future accounting years;  
Visitors' centre (Parlamentarium)  
48. Notes that commitments entered into against item 3 2 4 3 ‘Visitors’ Centre’ increased significantly 
(+ 227 %) in contrast with the underspend in 2009 and amounted to EUR 12 725 985; points to the 
major problem with security of false ceilings that delayed the project in 2010 and obliged the 
administration to cancel EUR 1 000 000 that was then automatically carried over from 2009 to 
2010; notes that the total estimated costs are EUR 20 530 000, an increase of 15,3 % compared to 
2007; asks for safeguards so that other multi-million euro plans will not see similar increases;  
49. Welcomes the opening of the Visitors’ Centre on 14 October 2011 (originally planned for the 2009 
European elections); deplores however the considerable delay and cost overrun of this project; calls for 
a review of the Visitors’ Centre once it has been operational for a twelve month period in order to 
assess the public reaction, its strengths/weaknesses, and its cost/benefits with a view to ensuring it is 
delivering value for money;  
House of European History  
50. Notes that, on 5 July 2010, the Bureau adopted Parliament’s updated Communication Strategy which 
included the project of the House of European History and that, in September 2010, an international 
jury examined that project; further notes that use was not made of budget chapter 1 0 6 ‘Reserve for 
priority projects under development’ for this project as all the appropriations of that chapter 
(EUR 5 000 000) were transferred to chapter 2 1 0 ‘Computing and telecommunications’; insists 
that the total financial implications of the project be made available, especially in light of the 
complications raised by the subterranean Maalbeek River flowing under the building’s foundations; 
reiterates its expectation that the cost plan contained in the Business Plan be strictly adhered to;  
51. Regrets that decisions taken by the Bureau and other bodies concerning the House of European 
History were not based on the full ‘estimated’ final costs involved in establishing a fully operational 
project; advises the Bureau and the Quaestors not to approve any project or initiative in future for 
which no total financial estimate for direct or indirect costs is presented;  
Visitors’ groups  
52. Recognises the importance of the visitors’ scheme in raising awareness of Parliament and its legislative 
work; notes the recent changes made to the visitor group payment system put in place since 2010 
and calls for an evaluation of the new payment system and reimbursement scheme showing the 
evolution of costs and the degree to which payments reflect the actual costs incurred by the groups; 
suggests to the Court of Auditors that it should follow this up and looks forward to the Internal 
Auditor’s remarks on the implementation of the new system;  
53. Urges Parliament’s administration to report to Parliament on experience in general with the amended 
rules governing the size of official visitors’ groups, and in particular on the effects of these rules on 
organisation and capacity utilisation;  
54. Voices its concern – for obvious security reasons and having regard to Parliament’s image – at the fact 
that the institution gives large sums in cash to visitor group leaders;EN L 286/12 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
WebTV  
55. Regrets that EuroparlTV cannot be considered to be a success story in view of its very low number of 
direct individual users (  1 ) (excluding viewers through partnership agreements with regional TVs) in 
spite of the considerable financing that it received in 2010, amounting to some EUR 9 000 000 (item 
3 2 4 6); welcomes the efforts made to reduce this budget by 14 % (to EUR 8 000 000) in 2011 and 
in the subsequent years; recognises with regret, however, that further subsidy cannot be justified and 
calls on the Secretary-General to present proposals to its competent committee for the closure of the 
operation;  
Prizes  
56. Notes that the costs relating to the LUX Prize in 2010 were EUR 380 666,18; is concerned that the 
costs rose for the event in 2011 to EUR 573 722,08 (by over 50 %) and looks forward to a sharp 
reverse in this trend from 2012 onwards; specifically requests that the following activities be curtailed 
in order to contain costs:  
— expensive internal promotion within the buildings of Parliament,  
— promotional activities at international film festivals,  
— the large expenditure associated with the costs of organising ‘mini-LUX’ events in the Member 
States;  
57. Notes the expenditure of the prizes for the period 2009-2011:  
(EUR)  
2009  2010  2011  
Prize for Journalism  105 000  118 059  154 205  
Sakharov Prize  300 000  654 542  652 348  
Charlemagne Youth Prize  24 000  34 000  35 000  
LUX prize  320 000  380 666  573 722  
Totals:  749 000  1 187 267  1 415 275  
58. Believes that the 89 % increase in the expenditure on the prizes between 2009 and 2011 used funds 
that could have been better deployed elsewhere; calls for future expenditure on prizes to be brought 
back down to the levels of 2009;  
59. Notes that costs relating to the Prize for Journalism in 2010 were EUR 118 059, an increase of 18 % 
on 2009 figure; is concerned that the costs rose for the event in 2011 by more than a quarter, and 
requests that a full cost-benefit analysis be carried out before any initiatives are developed in this field 
of relations with the press or any other field, now that the Prize has been terminated;  
60. Does not consider the prizes to be a core activity of Parliament and requests that a cost-benefit 
analysis be carried out before any new prize initiatives are developed, so as to take the continuing 
deteriorating financial and economic situation in all Member States into account;  
Information offices/Europa Houses  
61. Notes the establishment of a Resource Directorate in the DG in 2010 to carry out, inter alia, the 
centralised coordination of public procurement, thereby enabling the decentralised information offices 
to be affected less by the practice of moving key staff from sensitive posts;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/13  
( 1 ) Between 11 000 and 66 000 (with an average of less than 30 000) visits monthly in 2010
62. Notes that the 978 missions from Parliament’s 32 information offices to Brussels and Strasbourg cost 
in total EUR 944 330,- which was on average EUR 701 — for a mission to Brussels and EUR 1 064 
— for a mission to Strasbourg; notes that a mission from Luxembourg to Brussels costs on average 
EUR 250, while a mission from Luxembourg to Strasbourg cost on average EUR 630; requests to be 
provided, in the future, with the average cost per mission as well (page 68 of the replies to the 
questionnaire);  
Washington Liaison Office  
63. Notes the opening in April 2010 of the EP Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington and the system of 
one-year missions for four officials put in place in October 2010; observes that, although the creation 
of the Washington Office has not entailed the creation of any new posts, other costs have inevitably 
been incurred; would like to be informed of the level of those costs for 2011 and 2012; calls for a 
review of its structure, activities and costs to be presented to the Bureau with copies to the relevant 
competent committees;  
DG Personnel (DG PERS)  
64. Welcomes the fact that the DG has been able to improve performance due to the outsourcing of 
certain functions (such as crèche management) and the increased use of IT in the management of 
personnel files; welcomes the implementation of the IT application Streamline;  
65. Notes the impact of the Council’s decision of December 2009 to award an annual salary adjustment 
of only 1,85 %, instead of the 3,7 % indicated and proposed by the Commission, resulting in 
outstanding commitments (just under EUR 6 000 000 or 1,4 %) for item 1 2 0 0 ‘Remuneration 
and allowances’;  
66. Notes that the total establishment plan for Parliament was set at 6 285 posts: 5 348 (or 85,1 %) for 
Parliament’s Secretariat and 937 (or 14,9 %) for the Political Groups, representing an increase from 
2009 to 2010 of 3,35 % (+ 204 posts), largely resulting from Parliament’s increased responsibilities, 
following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009;  
67. Takes note of the changes to the Secretariat’s structure, which were adopted by the Bureau in 2009 
and which took effect at the beginning of 2010, in preparation for the new parliamentary term, 
particularly with a view to strengthening services for Members; observes that these changes led, in 
particular, to the restructuring of DG PRES, DG PERS and DG INLO, and also involved the creation of 
a resource directorate in DG PRES, DG IPOL, DG EXPO and DG COMM, namely, the four direc ­
torates-general with an essentially political remit;  
68. Notes that, at 31 December 2010, a majority of staff in the Secretariat (58,4 %) and within the 
administrators’ function group (51,7 % female) were women; welcomes that, at the level of senior and 
middle management, the proportion of female directors-general increased in 2010 (to 36,4 %, that is, 
four out of 11) and heads of unit (to 26,2 %);  
69. Points to the difficulties in recruiting officials or agents from certain Member States such as Germany, 
the UK, Austria or the Netherlands for which the proportion of staff in Parliament’s Secretariat is 
significantly lower than the ‘demographic weight’ of the given country within the Union (  1 ) and 
observes the relatively high numbers of staff of holding the nationality of Belgium (13,6 %) or 
Luxembourg (2,3 %), as a result of the working places of Parliament; asks the Bureau to review 
recruitment procedures and requirements to ascertain what part they may play in creating difficulties 
in recruiting staff;EN L 286/14 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) Proportion in staff/proportion in demographic weight: Germany: 6,4 %/16,3 %, United Kingdom: 4,4 %/12,4 %, 
Austria: 1 %/1,67 %, the Netherlands: 2,7 %/3,3 %. 
Sources: EP Social Report 2010, December 2011 and Eurostat.
Missions to the three places of work/Mission costs  
70. Notes that, in 2010, there were 33 200 missions (official trips) representing a total of 98 629 mission 
days, most of them involving travel between Parliament’s three places of work; reiterates the need to 
avoid unnecessary missions between the three working places and the costs they entail with more 
systematic and documentary justifications and better monitoring; requests that the Secretary-General 
report, as part of the discharge procedure, on any savings made as a result of further rationalisation 
and on further initiatives that have been taken or that are in preparation leading to fewer missions; is 
further of the opinion that, in general, no committee meeting should take place in Strasbourg with the 
exception of those committees of which the agenda is directly linked to the reports or discussions on 
that week’s part session’s agenda; encourages the Court of Auditors to further analyse the existing 
mission procedures and to provide recommendations in order to improve their efficiency; asks the 
Secretary-General specifically to review the posts based outside of Brussels, particularly for those staff 
members who undertake repeated missions to Brussels, to ascertain if they need to be relocated; 
suggests that the agreement with the Luxembourg authorities, which fixes the number of Parliament 
staff based in Luxembourg without regard to any evolving needs of Parliament, may need to be 
revised;  
Members and Assistants’ Statutes  
71. Notes with satisfaction that the switch to this new employment system has been broadly budget 
neutral, with approximately 15 members of staff administering the employment of around 1 400 
assistants and looks forward to receiving a copy of the report on that new employment system’s 
implementation, its total indirect and direct costs, including the unemployment benefits paid out by 
the Commission;  
72. Notes that the Court of Auditors’ findings concerning shortcomings in the documentation and 
traceability of costs for assistants’ missions undertaken by private cars has not been remedied yet; 
urges Parliament’s administration to find a transparent and traceable solution for the matter, as soon 
as possible;  
DG Infrastructures and Logistics (DG INLO)  
Buildings/property policy  
73. Notes the medium- and long-term property policy (buildings strategy) adopted by the Bureau on 
24 March 2010 and its main parameters:  
(i) purchase rather than rent in line with the recommendations of the Court of Auditors;  
(ii) early payment of costs linked to property policy (i.e. paying off loans as rapidly as possible);  
(iii) geographic concentration of buildings in the three workplaces;  
(iv) special emphasis on building maintenance and renovation;  
(v) integration of Parliament as much as possible into the urban environment;  
(vi) making Parliament as accessible as possible for persons with a disability and implement the 
highest standards on safety, health and well-being of persons;  
(vii) making Parliament as environmentally-friendly as possible;  
74. Notes that the European Council, whilst justifiably calling for austerity on the part of Parliament, 
continues to deny it the opportunity to make the considerable savings that would arise from ceasing 
to hold meetings in Strasbourg;  
75. Notes that building maintenance, upkeep, operation and cleaning rose for all three workplaces from 
EUR 33 700 000 in total for 2009, to EUR 38 700 000 for 2010 and that forecasts show further rises 
for the years 2011-2013 except for a small decrease in Luxembourg costs in the year 2013; notes, 
furthermore, the energy and utilities consumption with less dramatic but consistent increases for the 
same time period;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/15
76. Notes the significantly reduced lease payments in 2010 (EUR 5 700 000 compared to 
EUR 58 600 000 in 2008 — the highest sum of recent years), notes the less extreme fluctuations 
in rental costs (EUR 25 300 000 in 2010, compared with a high of EUR 31 200 000 in 2006 and a 
low of EUR 19 900 000 in 2007) and also notes the varied amounts spent on buildings from a high 
of EUR 165 900 000 in 2006, to zero in 2009 and EUR 20 200 000 in 2010;  
77. Notes with satisfaction that, according to the responses received to the discharge questionnaire, 
estimates indicate that, if the institution had been renting all its buildings, it would have had to 
make provision, in its 2010 budget, for additional costs of EUR 163 000 000, equivalent to 10 % of 
its total budget; supports, therefore, this policy of purchase rather than rent, which has been strongly 
recommended by the Court of Auditors for several years, most recently in its Special Report 
No 2/2007 on property expenditure;  
78. Notes that the works to remove asbestos from three buildings in Strasbourg in 2010, which cost 
EUR 2 464 701, were largely reimbursed by the City of Strasbourg which contributed EUR 2 015 000;  
79. Notes that, on 27 January 2010, the Belgian State reimbursed to Parliament the sum of 
EUR 85 987 000 in the context of its defrayal of the cost of the land forming the site for the 
Willy Brandt and József Antall buildings and of the development costs for the roof over the 
Brussels-Luxembourg railway station; points out that this amount has been entered in the accounts 
as ‘assigned revenue’ in accordance with the Financial Regulation and has been used to finance 
property projects;  
80. Notes the purchase in 2010 of the REMARD Building in Brussels (EUR 11 000 000) and the decision 
to purchase the Europe House in Sofia (EUR 9 240 000); regrets that, due to the restricted market, the 
costs of maintenance, renovation and purchase are unnecessary high, and it is difficult to maintain the 
confidentiality of negotiations; considers that a proposed requirement under the revised Financial 
Regulation for the institutions to publish their building plans for a number of years ahead would 
result in an appreciable cost to the institutions and the taxpayer;  
81. Observes that allowing direct financing of buildings in the revised Financial Regulation would have a 
positive effect as it would enable Parliament to use loans without calling in third parties, thus reducing 
costs and increasing transparency at the same time; points out that this is already the case with the 
financing of the KAD building in Luxembourg for which a partnership with the European Investment 
Bank, which is providing 50 % of the funds, has been agreed;  
82. Demands in this connection a detailed financial statement of the costs already incurred, and those 
projected for the next 20 years, in respect of the KAD building in Luxembourg, and insists that the 
expected total costs of construction, estimated operating costs and other expenditure arising in 
connection with the construction and operation of this building, be published in detail;  
83. Welcomes the assurance of the Secretary-General that there are no longer any assigned offices for 
lobbyists or foundations, but notes that, until 31 December 2011, the Pegasus foundation and the 
Kangaroo Group did have offices at their disposal in the buildings of Parliament;  
84. Regrets that office space was used in 2010 by accredited lobbying organisations, thus creating 
preferential treatment to these organisations in respect of Union taxpayer resources;  
Catering facilities  
85. Reiterates its call for more diverse catering options within the buildings of Parliament by ceasing to 
offer a monopoly to a single catering provider when current contracts reach the end of their term;EN L 286/16 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
DG Translation (DG TRAD) and DG Interpretation and Conferences (DG INTE)  
86. Notes that a total of 1 721 191 pages was translated in 2010 (1 033 176 of them — or 60 % - 
internally) and welcomes the fact that all documents required for votes were produced on time by DG 
TRAD and 90 % of translations overall were within the time limits set down for delivery, despite the 
fact that 65 % of requests for translation were placed late (i.e. outside the ten working days provided 
in the Code of Conduct on Multilingualism);  
87. Notes with satisfaction that DG TRAD is moving towards greater productivity and a more effective use 
of its budget, while ensuring that multilingualism is maintained; stresses, in this context, that internal 
productivity has increased from 1 500 pages per year to 1 800 pages; would welcome the publication 
of productivity figures per language unit;  
88. Notes, however, that after an increase of more than 10 % in the rate of compliance with the Code of 
Conduct on Multilingualism between 2008 and 2009 (its first year of implementation), the 
compliance rate has decreased between 2009 and 2010 (  1 ); calls on the committees, delegations 
and political groups to strictly observe the deadlines set in the Code of Conduct;  
89. Welcomes the new service of Interpretation ad personam (IAP) offered by DG INTE to Members and 
established following the pilot project started in 2010;  
DG Finance (DG FINS)  
90. Notes with satisfaction that there has been a reduction in the payment time for invoices to an average 
of 21 days in 2010;  
Transport costs  
91. Notes that, in 2010, the cost of travel of Members and staff amounted to some EUR 107 000 000 (  2 ) 
(or 6,6 % of all total final appropriations) and that a 5 % reduction is now in force; considers that the 
potential for further reductions through pooled airmiles should be considered; requests that an 
analysis of article 3 0 0 be provided by way of a note to the accounts of the average cost of travel 
per official for the six routes: Brussels-Luxembourg; Luxembourg-Brussels; Luxembourg-Strasbourg; 
Strasbourg-Luxembourg; Brussels-Strasbourg; Strasbourg-Brussels;  
Travel Agency  
92. Notes that final appropriations for the Travel Agency amounted to EUR 1 438 000 in 2010, with a 
high commitment rate (94 %); further notes that it obtains negotiated prices from airlines, which 
means that there is an average price for the best service; stresses however that this does not mean that, 
for a specific day or journey, it is not possible to get better prices by booking directly with travel 
operators; calls for an independent inquiry to produce a performance evaluation of the Travel Agency, 
its structure and its operation; calls on the existing travel agent contractor to make better efforts to 
ensure that the cheapest options are always proposed to Members and staff; further calls on the 
appropriate directorate to monitor service levels provided by the Travel Agency;  
93. Regrets that, in some cases, the Travel Agency does not offer the best price, compared to other travel 
agencies, both physical and online; requests to DG Finance to develop an adequate control mechanism 
which ensures the best ratio quality/price;  
94. Takes the view that comparable flight price data need to be obtained in order to determine the best 
price for any given flight;  
95. Believes that Parliament should cease awarding monopolistic contracts wherever possible and that 
reduced costs and a better service for Members and staff would result from having more than one 
travel agency at their disposal;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/17  
( 1 ) DG TRAD Annual Activity Report, page 8.  
( 2 ) The sum of final appropriations for items 1 0 0 4 (Ordinary travel expenses) and 1 0 0 5 (Other travel expenses) and 
for article 3 0 0 (Expenses on staff missions and duty travel between the three working places): EUR 106 718 500.
Mopping-up transfers  
96. Welcomes the fact that, at the end of the 2010 financial year, the mopping up procedure was not 
used as has been requested by its Committee on Budgetary Control in recent years, thereby preventing 
there being a significant difference between the budget as planned for the year and its implementation, 
as happened in previous years and believes that all Union institutions could make scrutiny and budget 
discharge for future years easier if they planned buildings expenditure in a transparent way via the 
budget procedure:  
Pension Funds  
97. Notes that, although in 2010 the value of the assets of the Voluntary Pension Fund increased by 
13,3 % as the investment markets continued to recover from the global financial crisis of 2008, the 
voluntary pension fund had a deficit as at 31 December 2010 of EUR 178 960 000, which raises 
concerns about the possible default of the fund; reminds that Parliament is guaranteeing the payment 
of pension rights for all former and some current Members of this voluntary pension fund, when and 
if this fund is not able to meet its obligations; would like to be informed how and from which budget 
line Parliament will meet its obligations in such an eventuality;  
98. Recognises that two-thirds of payments into the fund were made directly by Parliament rather than by 
individual members; reminds members of the fund that their contributions were voluntary, and insists 
that Parliament should make no further financial contribution towards meeting payments or reducing 
the deficit of a fund that may not have been structured satisfactorily from the outset;  
99. Notes, furthermore, that obligations arising from PEAM Rules (Payment of Expenses and Allowances 
to Members) relating to pensions for survivors and invalidity pensions (Annex II) amount to 
EUR 28 950 000; points out that there are sums used to cover cases – mainly involving Italian 
and French Members – where national and European Parliament pension provisions differed 
(Annex III) of EUR 195 640 000, and sums from the newly established Statute scheme of 
EUR 152 210 000 (the latter figure will rise year on year); draws attention to the fact that there 
are no funds to cover this expenditure;  
DG Innovation and Technological Support (DG ITEC)  
100. Notes the Bureau decisions of 17 June 2009 and of 18 October 2010 to extend the areas with 
wireless network access (Wi-Fi) in Parliament covering the Chamber, committee rooms, Members’ 
offices and public spaces both in Brussels and Strasbourg (1st phase of the project: EUR 7 878 000); 
asks DG ITEC to make it possible for individual Members to request not to receive paper documents 
in future for committee meetings where eCommittee is used; believes that this could speed up the 
success of the project;  
101. Welcomes the ongoing graphical redesign of the EP website following the Bureau decision on 
22 November 2010 on the ‘Strategy for the future presence of the European Parliament online — 
Recasting the EP website’; calls for improvement in the support of the website, in particular by 
performing regular tests;  
102. Welcomes the AT4AM system, introduced in 2010, that makes it easier for Members to amend 
proposed legislative and non-legislative texts;  
103. Notes with satisfaction the improvements in the IT sector from 2010 onwards resulting in: greater 
capacity to manage key aspects ‘in house’, the process of internalisation of activities, the establishment 
of key corporate governance organs (Committee on ICT Innovation Strategy and Steering Committee 
for ICT Innovation), the setting-up of the IT planning function and of the reporting system on the 
status of IT development projects and the development of a transparent short-term planning method ­
ology; welcomes the extensive use of performance indicators by this DG; expresses its disquiet at the 
growing risk of illicit access to, and manipulation of, Parliament’s ICT systems and considers that, as a 
matter of the utmost urgency, an effective long-term strategy must be devised to protect them; asks 
the Secretary-General to keep it informed of the measures taken to that end;EN L 286/18 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
104. expects a full report on how Parliament’s Free Software projects have developed with regards to use 
and users in Parliament, citizen interaction and procurement activities; suggests an investigation of 
Parliament’s obligations under Rule 103 with regard to Free Software and Open Standards;  
Public procurement in DG ITEC  
105. Encourages DG ITEC to strive to better prepare procurement procedures, in particular in the case of 
framework contracts, which are often complex, by stipulating contracting obligations on deliverables 
and results rather than simple output and by better defining Parliament’s needs and objectives; 
suggests that, rather than using penalty clauses, Parliament should seek compensation from a 
supplier or service provider who fails to deliver or use the threat of the loss of future work, in the 
case of framework contracts;  
New voting equipment and interpretation facilities  
106. Notes that new voting equipment in the Hemicycles cost EUR 2 135 623 and was fully financed from 
the 2010 appropriation; further notes that the cost of maintenance and of technical assistance for the 
voting equipment was EUR 147 149 in 2010;  
Political Groups (budget item 4 0 0 0)  
107. Notes that, in 2010, the appropriations entered under budget item 4 0 0 0 were used as follows:  
Group  2010  2009 (**)  
Annual 
appropriations (*)  Own resources 
and carried-over 
appropriations  Expenditure  Rate of use of 
annual 
appropriations  Amounts 
carried over 
to next 
period  Annual 
appropriations  Own 
resources and 
carried-over 
appropriations  Expenditure  Rate of use of 
annual 
appropriations  Amounts 
carried over 
to next 
period (2010)  
EPP 
(formerly 
EPP-ED)  19 990  2 392  20 662  103,36 %  1 720  19 715  7 782  25 314  128,40 %  2 182  
S&D 
(formerly 
PSE)  14 011  4 629  13 359  95,35 %  5 281  14 235  6 999  16 750  117,67 %  4 483  
ALDE  6 262  2 240  6 160  98,37 %  2 342  6 441  3 065  7 328  113,77 %  2 178  
Greens/ 
EFA  3 896  1 188  3 893  99,92 %  1 191  3 360  1 055  3 235  96,28 %  1 179  
GUE/ 
NGL  2 531  1 065  2 525  99,76 %  1 071  2 673  1 487  3 102  116,05 %  1 057  
UEN  —  1 417  1 452  2 552  180,10 %  0  
IND/ 
DEM  — 775  1 023  1 048  135,23 %  0  
ECR  3 648  398  3 362  92,16 %  684  1 788  3  1 415  79,14 %  376  
EFD  2 201  419  1 799  81,74 %  821  1 113  1  701  62,98 %  413  
Non- 
attached 
Members  1 234  248  828  67,10 %  409  1 169  348  925  79,13 %  248  
Total  53 773  12 579  52 588  97,80 %  13 519  52 686  23 215  62 370  118,38 %  12 116  
(*) All amounts in thousand EUR. 
(**) Year 2009 consisted of two financial years due to parliamentary elections in June 2009. The figures for 2009 in the table represent the sum of the 2009_1 and 2009_2 
amounts. 
After the European elections in 2009 the UEN and IND/DEM groups ceased to exist and two new groups ECR and EFD were created.EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/19
108. Welcomes the commitment of the administration of Parliament cited in the Court of Auditors Report 
to move to using the full calendar year to calculate carry-overs by political groups at the end of 
election years, rather than two separate half years; welcomes the apparent improvement in financial 
forecasting indicated by the fact that no unused appropriations were returned by political groups for 
2010;  
European Political Parties and European Political Foundations  
109. Notes that in 2010 the appropriations entered under budget items 4 0 2 0 and 4 0 3 0 were used as 
follows (  1 ): 
Party  Abbreviation  Own 
resources (*)  EP grant  Total 
revenue  EP grant as % of 
eligible 
expenditure 
(max. 85 %)  Revenue surplus 
(transfer to 
reserves) or loss  
European People’s Party  EPP  1 413  4 959  6 372  85 %  429  
Party of European Socialists  PES  914  3 395  4 310  80 %  2  
European Liberal Democrat and 
Reform Party  ELDR  379  1 554  1 933  85 %  77  
European Green Party  EGP  365  1 055  1 420  85 %  170  
Alliance of European Conser ­
vatives and Reformists  AECR  58  327  386  85 %  0  
Party of the European Left  EL  200  708  908  71 %  – 90  
European Democratic Party  EDP/PDE  95  424  519  85 %  12  
European Free Alliance  EFA  77  339  416  85 %  17  
EUDemocrats  EUD  35  176  211  85 %  – 17  
European Christian Political 
Movement  ECPM  55  208  264  85 %  3  
Total  3 591  13 145  16 739  83 %  603  
(*) all amounts in thousand EUR  
Foundation  Abbreviation  Affiliated to 
party  Own 
resources (*)  EP grant  Total revenue  EP grant as % of 
eligible 
expenditure 
(max. 85 %)  
Centre for European Studies  CES  EPP  615  2 928  3 543  83 %  
Foundation for European 
Progressive Studies  FEPS  PES  366  2 136  2 502  85 %  
European Liberal Forum  ELF  ELDR  117  658  775  85 %  
Green European Foundation  GEF  EGP  119  674  794  85 %  
Transform Europe  TE  EL  87  475  562  85 %  
Institute of European Demo ­
crats  IED PDE  36  197  233  85 %  
Foundation for EU Democracy  FEUD  EUD  20  122  142  85 %EN L 286/20 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) Source: Bureau minutes 12 September 2011, point 12 (SG note D(2011) 32179, PE469.487/BUR).
Foundation  Abbreviation  Affiliated to 
party  Own 
resources (*)  EP grant  Total revenue  EP grant as % of 
eligible 
expenditure 
(max. 85 %)  
Centre Maurits Coppieters  CMC  EFA  27  156  183  85 %  
New Direction  ND  AECR  92  404  496  84 %  
Total  1 479  7 750  9 230  84 %  
(*) all amounts in thousand EUR  
110. Notes changes since 2010 including management visits where sample checking takes place on budget, 
recruitment, tendering and other systems;  
Environment-friendly Parliament  
111. Notes the CO  2 action plan adopted by the Bureau in 2010; welcomes the significant reduction in 
energy consumption at the Strasbourg seat of Parliament, which fell by 74 % between 2006 and 
2010; regrets, however, that the carbon footprint of the Strasbourg site, representing energy 
consumed for the year 2010, was 1 533 tonnes of CO  2 ; 
112. Takes the view that the possibility should be considered of making both environmental improvements 
and savings in Parliament’s budget by means of different working methods which are greener and 
cheaper but do not detract from Parliament’s work, including the use of teleconferences;  
113. Welcomes the introduction in December 2010 of a ‘third-party payment system’ for NMBS/SNCB (  1 ) 
season tickets in Brussels, under which Parliament contributes 50 % of the cost of individual annual 
season tickets taken out by its staff members; encourages its administration to make the necessary 
arrangements in order also to reimburse staff who need to combine rail and urban transport; takes the 
view that this could further promote the use of public transport and reduce Parliament’s carbon 
footprint;  
114. Welcomes the pilot projects in the area of logistics which ran in 2010 (e.g. purchasing low-emissions 
vehicles — EURO 5 standard, holding training in environmentally responsible driving for drivers and 
removal staff, trunk sharing for the transport of working documents, thereby reducing CO  2 emissions 
by around 33 % in that area) as part of EMAS Action Plan;  
115. Welcomes the adoption by the Bureau on 10 November 2010 of the proposal from the Working 
Group on Buildings, Transport and Green Parliament revising the rules governing the use of official 
cars by Members that has allowed Parliament to modernise its fleet with less polluting cars and to 
organise grouped transport with VIP minibuses to airports in Brussels and Strasbourg;  
Separate plenary debate on Parliament’s discharge  
116. Calls on the Conference of Presidents to schedule a debate on Parliament’s discharge at a different time 
than the debate on the other discharge reports in order to give Members the opportunity to give it the 
exclusive attention the discharge of their own institution deserves;  
117. Suggests to the Bureau that it should put on its agenda a discussion on the discharge Resolution 
following its adoption by plenary.EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/21  
( 1 ) National Railway Company of Belgium.