RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 10 May 2012  
with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge for implementation of the 
European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II — Council  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010 (  1 ), 
— having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 
473 – C7-0258/2011) (  2 ), 
— having regard to the Council’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 
2010,  
— having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the 
financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (  3 ), 
— having regard to the statement of assurance (  4 ) 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 Articles 317, 318 and 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 (  5 ), and in particular Articles 
50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,  
— having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for 
the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of 
Council Members (  6 ), 
— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the 
Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (  7 ), 
— 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 (A7-0095/2012),  
1. In keeping with its power to make use of the two deadlines in the discharge timetable in order, in this 
case, to explore the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Presidency-in-Office, postpones its 
decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council’s 
budget for the financial year 2010;  
2. Takes note of the fact that, in its annual report for 2010, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its 
audit work, that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative 
and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error; points out that the 
most likely error rate as regards administrative expenditure in general is estimated at 0,4 % (paragraphs 
7.9 and 7.10);  
3. Acknowledges receipt of a series of documents for the 2010 discharge procedure (final financial 
statements for 2010, including the accounts, the financial activity report and the summary of the 
2010 internal audits); is still awaiting all necessary documents for a discharge (including the full 2010 
internal audit);EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/23  
( 1 ) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.  
( 2 ) OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.  
( 5 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 6 ) Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7).  
( 7 ) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
4. Hopes that Parliament will receive the complete annual activity report; insists that the annual activity 
report also provides a comprehensive overview of all human resources available to the Council, broken 
down by category, grade, gender, participation in vocational training and nationality;  
5. Points out that in its 2010 annual report the Court of Auditors criticised the financing of the Residence 
Palace building project because of the advance payments (paragraph 7.19); notes that the Court of 
Auditors made the observation that during the period 2008-2010 advance payments made by the 
Council totalled EUR 235 000 000; notes that the amounts paid came from under-utilised budget lines; 
points out that ‘under-utilised’ is the politically correct term for ‘over-budgeted’; points out that in 2010 
the Council increased the budget line for ‘Acquisition of immovable property’ by EUR 40 000 000;  
6. Notes the Council’s explanation concerning the fact that the appropriations were made available by 
budget transfers authorised by the budget authority in accordance with the procedures laid down in 
Articles 22 and 24 of the Financial Regulation;  
7. Shares the Court of Auditors’ view that such a procedure does not comply with the principle of budget 
accuracy, despite the savings made in paying rent;  
8. Notes the Council’s reply that the amounts for the budget lines for interpretation and delegations’ travel 
expenses should be more in line with the real consumption and calls for a better budgetary planning in 
order to avoid current practices in the future;  
9. Reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament’s request to carry out an in-depth assessment of super ­
visory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it carried out in relation to the 
Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor in the course 
of preparation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010;  
10. Regrets the difficulties encountered in the discharge procedures for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial 
years, which were due to the unwillingness of the Council to engage in an open and formal dialogue 
with the Committee on Budgetary Control as well as to answer the questions of the Committee; points 
out that Parliament refused to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for the implemen ­
tation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 
10 May 2011 (  1 ) and 25 October 2011 (  2 ); 
11. Reiterates its view that the European taxpayers have every right to expect that the entirety of the Union 
budget, including all the funds managed autonomously by its separate institutions and agencies, should 
be subject to full public scrutiny;  
12. Deplores the fact that, unlike the other Union institutions, the Council does not consider itself 
responsible for the use of the funds made available to it;  
13. Notes the flaw in the Council’s argument that granting discharge to the Commission should be inter ­
preted as granting discharge to the entirety of the Union budget, including parts of the budget used by 
the Council, is demonstrated by its inconsistent adherence to the position that the Commission should 
not have the power to oversee and manage its budget; believes that the only logical resolution of this 
conflict is for Council either to invite the Commission to take control of its finances or to participate 
fully in a standard discharge procedure which must necessarily follow mutatis mutandis the full 
procedures followed for all the other institutions of the European Union;EN L 286/24 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 25.  
( 2 ) OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 13.
14. Reiterates that the Parliament is still waiting for the reply of the Council on the actions and request for 
documents set out in the two above mentioned resolutions; calls on the Secretary-General of the 
Council to provide Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure with comprehensive 
written answers to the following questions:  
(a) with regard to previous Council discharge debates in Parliament’s committee responsible for the 
discharge procedure, the Council did not attend these meetings regularly, however, it is considered 
of utmost importance that the Council attends in order to reply to committee members’ questions 
referring to the Council discharge. Does the Council agree to attend future debates on the Council 
discharge in Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure?  
(b) why does the Council change the presentation/the format of the internal audit every year? Why is 
the internal audit so short, generic and unclear every year? Will the Council for the 2010 discharge 
onwards please present the internal audit in (a) language(s) other than French?  
(c) has an external audit been carried out? If so, may Parliament’s committee responsible for the 
discharge procedure see it? If an external audit does not exist, why has the Council chosen not to 
make one?  
(d) until now, the activity of the Council implied co-financing with the Commission, which has 
experienced an increase after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. What audit and 
control systems have been put in place to ensure full transparency? Given that the Treaty of 
Lisbon increased the co-financing with the Commission, what is the Council’s understanding of 
‘respond to the appropriate enquiries’?  
(e) the Court of Auditors, in its annual report 2009, found that in two out of six procurement 
procedures audited, the Council did not respect the rules of the Financial Regulation for the 
publication of the outcome of the procedure. Has the Council scrutinised more samples of 
similar procurements? Has the internal procedure been streamlined in order to avoid similar 
cases in the future?  
(f) staff of European Union Special Representatives (EUSRs): Please indicate the staff (all staff, estab ­
lishment plan and others) — number of posts, grade — for the EUSRs in the Council for 2009. In 
which way and when will the EUSRs-staff posts be allocated between the Council and the 
European External Action Service (EEAS)? What was the travel budget for each of the EUSRs? 
How many of the EUSRs’ staff were transferred on 1 January 2011 to the EEAS? How many will 
remain with the Council and why?  
(g) the Council highlights budgetary questions concerning the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon in 
point 2.2 in the financial activity report (11327/2010, FIN 278). Has the Council solved the 
problems concerning Mr Solana’s expenditures? What part of the expenditures falls under the 
Council budget and what part falls under the Commission budget?  
(h) what were the operational expenditures, administrative expenditures, staff, buildings, etc. envisaged 
by the Council for 2009 in order to set up the High Representative/Vice President of the 
Commission (HR/VP)?  
(i) the HR/VP came into office on 1 December 2009. How was the cost distributed between the 
Council and the Commission (for staff, travel, etc.)? How did the Council prepare the budget for 
the HR/VP for 2010? Which budget lines and sums were reserved for her activities?  
(j) how will office space released in the process of staff transfer to the EEAS influence Council’s plans 
on buildings? Have arrangements been made for the subsequent use of such office space? What is 
the anticipated cost for the removals? When were calls for tenders for the removals (if any) 
published?  
(k) what was the administrative and operational expenditure related to the Common Foreign and 
Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) tasks, which were at least part- 
financed from the Union budget in 2009? What was the total amount of CFSP expenditure in 
2009? Could the Council identify at least the main missions and their cost in 2009?  
(l) what was the cost of meetings for Council working groups on CFSP/CSDP in Brussels and 
elsewhere and where did these meetings take place?EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/25
(m) what was the administrative expenditure relating to the implementation of the European Security 
and Defence Policy (ESDP)/CSDP military operations? What share of the total amount of expen ­
ditures arising from military operations has been charged to the Union budget?  
(n) what was the administrative expenditure implemented for the operation of the ‘ATHENA’ mech ­
anism, how many posts were needed for that mechanism, will any of the posts in question be 
transferred to the EEAS? To whom will the postholders report?  
(o) there is a low occupation rate of posts in the Council’s establishment plan (91 % in 2009, 90 % in 
2008). Does this consistently low rate cause any repercussions on how the Council’s General 
Secretariat (CGS) functions? Can the CGS perform all its functions with the current occupation 
rate? Are lower occupation rates specific to any particular services? What are the reasons for the 
persistent discrepancy?  
(p) what is the total number of posts assigned to the task of ‘policy coordination’ and administrative 
support (as defined in the Commission’s annual staff screening reports)? What percentage of the 
overall number of posts do these represent?  
(q) to achieve the administrative objectives in 2009 the Council added teleworking to its working 
procedures. How does the Council prove the efficiency of this working procedure? In addition, the 
Council is asked to report on further measures taken in this respect and in particular those to 
improve the quality of financial management as well as their impact;  
(r) the Council increased its posts by 15 (8 AD and 7 AST) to cover the staffing requirements of the 
Irish language unit. How many staff members deal with other languages (staff per language)? Are 
there already staff employed for and from the applicant countries? If the answer is in the 
affirmative — how many posts are concerned (separated per country and language)?  
(s) the ‘Reflection Group’ was established on 14 December 2007, and its members appointed on 
15-16 October 2008. What were the reasons why the necessary financing could not have been 
envisaged and included in Budget 2009? Is a transfer in Budget 2009 from the contingency reserve 
to a budget position financing a structure conceived in 2007 strictly budget neutral? The Council 
earmarked EUR 1 060 000 for the ‘Reflection Group’. How many posts can be allocated to this 
group?  
(t) the expenditures concerning travel delegations still seem to be problematic (cf. Council note 
15 June 2010, SGS10 8254, II bullet, page 4). Why do these expenditures appear in so many 
different budget lines?  
(u) why does the internal audit still find it necessary to add ‘les frais de voyage des délégués et les frais 
d’interprétation’ (delegates’ travelling expenses and interpretation expenses) after strong criticism in 
the last two resolutions from Parliament on the Council discharge?  
(v) the Council again has used underspending on interpretation to provide extra financing for delega ­
tions’ travel expenses; as a result, actual 2009 commitments for travel expenses amounted to 
considerably less than the initial budget, and less than half of the amount available after the 
transfer (EUR 36 100 000 initial and EUR 48 100 000 available after transfer against 
EUR 22 700 000 committed).What were the reasons for this EUR 12 000 000 transfer (cf. the 
financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 -point 3.3.2-VI bullet)?? Why is the transfer 
from interpretation to delegates’ travelling expenses estimated at EUR 12 000 000 by the Council 
at page 12 and at EUR 10 558 362 at page 13? What has the remaining amount transferred from 
interpretation been spent on (the total amount transferred from interpretation is 
EUR 17 798 362)? In addition, the Council is asked to explain the large amount of recovery 
orders made before 2009 and carried over to 2009 (EUR 12 300 000) as well as recoveries made 
from declarations relating to 2007 (EUR 6 300 000);EN L 286/26 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
(w) in 2009 the Council, as it did in 2008, reallocated a considerable amount of its budget to 
buildings, in particular, more than doubling the initial allocations to the acquisition of the 
Residence Palace (reallocated EUR 17 800 000 in addition to EUR 15 000 000 earmarked in 
Budget 2009). What are the reasons for this? Can the CGS provide concrete figures of the 
savings achieved as a result of this? What was the initially projected cost of the Residence 
Palace Building? Does the Council think the initially projected cost will be accurate or could 
the cost be higher than estimated? What steps are envisaged to finance the building?  
(x) implementation of the Council budget — appropriations carried over: Could the Council present 
the estimated amount and subject of the invoices which were not received by June 2010 for the 
year 2009 and therefore carried over?  
(y) the carry-over to 2010 of the appropriations of assigned revenues accrued in 2009 amounted to 
EUR 31 800 000. This is about 70 % of the assigned revenue for 2009. What are the reasons for 
this high carry-over ratio? What will happen/has happened to this revenue in 2010?  
(z) what does ‘technical provision of EUR 25 000 000 for the launch of the European Council 2010’ 
mean? (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 3.1, IV bullet);  
(aa) what is the level of confidentiality of the Council budget specified by the different budget lines?  
(ab) can the Council point out the specific measures taken to improve the quality of the Council’s 
financial management, in particular as regards the points raised in paragraph 5 of Parliament’s 
resolution of 25 November 2009 (  1 ) accompanying its decision on discharge to the Council for the 
financial year 2007?  
(ac) Calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament’s Committee responsible for 
the discharge procedure with the following documents:  
— the full list of budgetary transfers concerning the 2009 Council budget,  
— a written statement on the Council’s mission expenses as carried out by the EUSRs,  
— the Members States’ declaration for 2007 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, 
FIN 278 — point 3.2.2, II bullet), and  
— the report of the ‘Reflection Group’ in order to understand why such a report costs 
EUR 1 060 000 (cf. the financial activity report — 11327/2010, FIN 278 — point 2;  
15. Notes the Commission’s reply of 25 November 2011 to the letter from the Chair of the Committee on 
Budgetary Control, in which the Commission says it is desirable for Parliament to continue to give, 
postpone or refuse discharge to the other institutions as has been the case up until now;  
16. Points out that on 31 January 2012 the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control sent a letter to 
the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, stating his wish to establish political dialogue and forwarding 
supplementary questions from the Committee on Budgetary Control on discharge to the Council; hopes 
therefore that the Council will provide to the competent committee for the discharge procedure a reply 
to the questionnaire -attached to the Chair’s letter- before the plenary debate;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/27  
( 1 ) OJ L 19, 23.1.2010, p. 9.
17. Regrets, however, that the Council refused to attend any official meeting of the Committee on 
Budgetary Control related to its discharge;  
18. Emphasises the right of Parliament, on the Council’s recommendation, to grant discharge in accordance 
with the procedure laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which must be 
interpreted in the light of its context and purpose, which is to submit the implementation of the entire 
budget of the European Union to parliamentary control and scrutiny without exception, and to grant 
discharge autonomously, not only in respect of the section of the budget implemented by the 
Commission, but also in respect of the sections of the budget implemented by the other institutions, 
as referred to in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation;  
19. Notes that the Council ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the European citizens for the 
funds entrusted to it as a Union institution; insists that this means the Council must participate fully 
and in good faith in the annual discharge process:  
— by responding in detail to the annual questionnaire prepared by the relevant parliamentary 
Committee,  
— by participating in any public hearing organised by the Committee as requested,  
— by being represented at all relevant meetings of the Committee when the discharge is under 
discussion;  
20. Believes the inter-institutional cooperation between Parliament and the Council to be of outmost 
importance in supervising the implementation of the Union budget; in this respect, asks the Council 
to provide the answers to the pending questionnaire submitted by Parliament;  
21. Calls on the Council to discuss the annual discharge for the general budget of the Union in a public 
part of the Council meeting.EN L 286/28 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012