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 Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 
2010,  
— having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Food Safety 
Authority for the financial year 2010, together with the Authority’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 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (  3 ) 
establishing a European Food Safety Authority, and in particular Article 44 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 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 the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0106/2012),  
A. whereas the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual 
accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and 
regular,  
B. whereas on 10 May 2011 Parliament granted the Executive Director of the European Food Safety 
Authority discharge for implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2009 (  5 ), and 
in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:  
— called on the Authority to strengthen the budget processes relating to its differentiated appropri ­
ations and the planning and monitoring of multiannual implementation,EN L 286/368 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 106.  
( 2 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.  
( 5 ) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 162.
— urged, in addition, the Authority to improve its budget management in order to reduce its high 
carry-over amounts,  
— invited the Authority to initiate a survey on the potential conflicts of interest of its leading scientists, 
its Management Board and its panel members, so that possible omissions in the declarations of 
interest can be detected and followed by action in a timely manner,  
C. whereas the overall budget of the Authority for 2010 was EUR 74 700 000 compared with 
EUR 71 400 000 in 2009, which represents an increase of 4,6 %; whereas the initial contribution of 
the Union to the budget of the Authority for 2010 was EUR 69 041 000, which represents an increase 
of 4,36 % compared with its initial contribution in 2009 (  1 ), 
D. whereas the workload continues its growing trend both in volume and in complexity with the adoption 
of more than 560 scientific outputs,  
Budget and financial management  
1. Recalls that the initial Union contribution to the Authority for 2010 amounted to EUR 69 041 000; 
notes however that EUR 3 950 000 coming from the recovery of surplus, was added to that amount 
which, as a result, makes a total Union contribution of EUR 72 991 000 for 2010;  
2. Acknowledges from its Annual Activity Report (AAR) that, in 2010, the Authority had a budget 
execution rate of 98,8 % in terms of committed appropriations and of 83,5 % in terms of payment 
appropriations; takes note that under Title 1 (Staff) and Title 2 (Infrastructure) the budget was fully 
executed while under Title 3 (Operations) the execution rate reached 96,5 %;  
3. Notes, however, from the AAR that in 2010 the Authority had a budget execution rate of only 83,5 % 
in terms of payment appropriations, which is 11 % below the target set by the Authority; finds from 
comments by the Authority that the execution rate in terms of payment appropriations is lower than 
expected for the following main reasons:  
— major data processing and IT operational support projects were initiated in November 2010 and 
therefore triggered payments for an amount of EUR 4 300 000 only in 2011,  
— delays in contracting scientific cooperation activities and lower payment levels under the existing 
grant and procurement programme led to an underspend of the related differentiated credits 
amounting to EUR 1 300 000,  
— payments for an amount of EUR 1 100 000 for specific projects in administration and communi ­
cation were postponed to 2011;  
4. Acknowledges from the Authority that budget execution was reported to the Management Board on a 
monthly basis, deviations from the budget execution targets by activity or in relation to the scientific 
cooperation programme were pointed out and corrective action taken;  
5. Urges, however, the Authority to take further action to enable a satisfactory budget execution in terms 
of both commitment and payment appropriations and to inform the discharge authority of the progress 
achieved;  
6. Notes from the Authority that in line with the schedule of the Commission, migration to the accrual- 
based accounting (ABAC) system was scheduled for September 2011 and implemented accordingly;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/369  
( 1 ) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010, p. 991.
7. Finds it unacceptable that while the Management Board of the Authority consists of only 15 members, 
each meeting costs on average EUR 92 630, which represents an amount of EUR 6 175 per member; 
underlines that this amount is nearly three times higher than the second most expensive Management 
Board of a decentralised agency; is of the opinion that the Management Board meetings costs are 
excessive and should be reduced drastically; calls on the Authority and its Management Board to 
remedy the situation immediately and to inform the discharge authority of the measures undertaken 
by 30 June 2012;  
Carry-overs and contract management process  
8. Acknowledges from the Authority that 6 % (EUR 270 000 000) of commitments for operational 
activities carried over from 2009 had to be cancelled; notes that this is an improvement compared 
with the previous year in which 19 % of commitments for operational activities were carried over from 
2008, 37 % of such commitments were carried over from 2007 and 26 % of such commitments were 
carried over from 2006;  
9. Urges, once more, the Authority to improve its budget management in order to reduce its high carry- 
over amounts; notes, in particular, that this situation demonstrates weaknesses in the Authority’s 
contract management and monitoring of the remittance of reports and cost statements;  
10. Calls on the Authority to develop and implement a common monitoring system for the management 
of all its contracts; acknowledges, in particular, the absence of a central and coordinated capacity at 
directorate level responsible for the monitoring of contracts; underlines that this entails a risk of 
inefficient use of resources and uncoordinated monitoring of contracts and therefore asks the 
Authority to centralise these responsibilities at the level of each directorate;  
11. Urges, in addition, the Authority to improve the reporting on contract implementation in order to 
guarantee effective supervision and management of its operational activities;  
Procurement  
12. Notes from its AAR that, in 2010, the Authority finalised 24 procurement procedures in Communi ­
cation and Administration for an amount of EUR 48 800 000, as well as 75 procurement contracts and 
10 grant agreements as part of the scientific cooperation programme with values of EUR 5 700 000 
and EUR 2 100 000 respectively;  
13. Notes that the Authority has had a Practical Procurement Guide since 2008 to provide practical 
guidance to its staff in preparing and implementing procurement procedures and the resulting 
contracts, and that the Guide is regularly updated; notes moreover that the Guide is being revised to 
take into account the rules recently adopted by the Commission on public procurement and revision of 
the Financial Regulation;  
Human resources  
14. Notes from the Authority that 99 % of planned posts were either filled or under offer by the end of 
2010;  
15. Calls on the Authority to address its weaknesses in recruitment procedures, which put at risk the 
transparency of the procedures; acknowledges, in particular, from the Court of Auditors that the 
Authority did not ensure the anonymity of the written tests and decided pass marks for the various 
stages of the selection process after the evaluation process had already started;  
16. Is concerned that the Authority delayed for over 12 months the Internal Audit Service (IAS)’s ‘very 
important’ recommendation which called on the Authority to define contract renewal processes and 
ensure the transparency of decision-making; calls, therefore, on the Authority to explain to the 
discharge authority the reasons behind this delay and to rapidly address this deficiency;EN L 286/370 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
Conflict of interest and ‘revolving door’ cases  
17. Notes, in particular, that in September 2010 the Chair of the Management Board was reported to have 
direct links to the food industry, and to be a member of the Board of Directors of the International Life 
Science Institute (ILSI) — Europe;  
18. Considers that, while a dialogue with industry on product assessment methodologies is legitimate and 
necessary, this dialogue should not undermine the independence of the Authority nor the integrity of 
risk assessment procedures; asks therefore the Authority to consider as a conflict of interest the current 
or recent past participation of its Management Board, panel and working group members or staff in 
ILSI activities such as taskforces, scientific committees or chairs for conferences;  
19. Urges the Court of Auditors to finalise and present its audit of conflict of interest in the Authority;  
20. Recalls that the current Chair of the Management Board failed, in 2010, to declare her membership of 
the Board of Directors of the ILSI; notes that ILSI is financed by firms in the food, chemical and 
pharmaceutical sectors;  
21. Considers, therefore, that a thorough case-by-case analysis of these reports and of possible and actual 
conflicts of interest should be carried out in order to evaluate the objectivity and impartiality of the 
Authority at all levels and the work it carries out; calls, moreover, on the Authority to undertake a 
thorough screening of the declarations of interest submitted by its staff, experts and members of the 
Management Board, followed by concrete measures to end conflicts of interest and to provide 
information to the public; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the screening 
process and the concrete measures adopted, by means of a detailed written report by 30 June 2012;  
22. Notes that the Court of Auditors has observed that the review process of the declarations of interests of 
the members of the Management Board is insufficiently rigorous and detailed and puts the 
completeness and transparency of the procedure at risk;  
23. Considers that product assessment should not be based solely on industry data, but should duly take 
into account independent scientific literature published in peer-reviewed journals; stresses that extra 
caution should be exercised in relation to industry influence in the development of guidelines and 
assessment methodologies, which should not favour industry-sponsored studies on speculative grounds 
and which should be developed in an open, transparent and balanced manner;  
24. Reminds the Authority that the rules governing declarations of interests should be accompanied by a 
set of consequences applied when those rules are breached; further, notes that the Authority should, in 
addition, focus on public interest in its independent decision-making by taking into account all relevant 
data and information;  
25. Notes that in March 2010 a German NGO turned to the European Ombudsman, complaining that the 
Authority did not adequately address a potential conflict of interest concerning the move of its Head of 
Genetically Modified Organisms Unit to a biotechnology company in 2008 less than two months after 
the staff member in question left the Authority, without a ‘cooling off’ period;  
26. Underlines that the Ombudsman concluded that the Authority had not carried out a thorough 
assessment of the alleged potential conflict of interest and called on the Authority to improve the 
way in which it applies its rules and procedures in future ‘revolving door’ cases; stresses, moreover, that 
the Ombudsman also observed that negotiations by a serving member of staff concerning a future job 
which could amount to a ‘revolving door’ situation would themselves constitute a conflict of interest 
and recommended that the Authority should strengthen its rules and procedures accordingly; calls on 
the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the concrete measures adopted, and their respective 
deadlines, to properly address the conclusions of the Ombudsman;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/371
27. Once more, urges the Authority to take appropriate measures in cases of conflict of interests and 
‘revolving door’ cases, including when cases occur within the Management Board, and to inform both 
the discharge authority and the public promptly of the measures taken;  
28. Notes from its AAR that in 2010 the Authority took several initiatives in the area of prevention and 
management of conflict of interests:  
— the commissioning of an independent report to assess the implementation by the Authority of its 
2007 policy on declaration of interests,  
— the commissioning of an independent report to benchmark the Authority’s independence system 
against those of both national and international peer organisations,  
— the conclusion of an external independent review of its declaration of interest assessments;  
29. Welcomes the fact that the Authority has adopted a new definition of conflicts of interests, based on 
the OECD definition, but warns that further improvements are necessary to strengthen the Authority’s 
policy on independence; stresses in particular that the criteria that define a conflict of interests should 
be clarified and widened, and include current and recent past activities;  
30. Takes note from the Authority that a review of its policy on declarations of interest took place in 2011 
and that its Management Board adopted a new policy on independence and scientific decision-making 
processes;  
31. Observes that the Authority is repeatedly challenged over alleged cases of conflicts of interest involving 
members of the experts’ panels, especially in the case of the panels on ‘Food additives and nutrient 
sources added to food’ (ANS) and ‘Genetically modified organisms’ (GMO); underlines that eight of the 
Authority’s panels and its scientific committee were due for renewal in March 2012 and that the 
Authority’s capability of implementing the new policy is under scrutiny; calls therefore on the 
Authority to inform the discharge authority in writing by 30 June 2012 of the steps undertaken to 
implement the new policy on independence and scientific decision-making processes and to conform to 
the OECD definition of conflict of interest when renewing its panels and its scientific committee; at the 
same time, calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the new composition of the 
panels and of the scientific committee by 30 June 2012;  
32. Takes note of the revision of the Authority’s procedures in December 2010 to ensure the implemen ­
tation of the obligations deriving from Article 16(2), and Articles 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations of 
Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, laid down in 
Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (  1 ); was informed that in 2010, 20 staff members 
left the Authority, all of whom received a letter on departure reminding them of their obligations vis-à- 
vis the Authority; calls on the Authority to further improve the way in which it applies its rules and 
procedures to avoid the ‘revolving door’ cases recently highlighted by the European Ombudsman; 
considers that any problems with the enforcement of staff rules and declarations of interests 
undermine the Authority’s credibility;  
33. Notes that the Authority has been audited by the Court of Auditors in the framework of the Special 
Report on conflicts of interest management in the Union Agencies and acknowledges from the Court of 
Auditors that the Special Report is due to be published by the end of June 2012;  
34. Acknowledges from the Special Report that the Commission is considering a modification of the future 
funding of the Authority and proposed that the discharge authority and the Council consider a partial 
fee-based financing structure for the Authority; notes that the Commission is conducting an impact 
assessment on the matter; expresses, however, concerns that the new funding scheme proposed by the 
Commission could affect the independence of the Authority;EN L 286/372 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.
Performance  
35. Notes from its AAR that a review of its efficiency, led by external consultants, began in 2010 with the 
launch of the e3 programme; acknowledges that the inception phase of the programme concerned the 
establishment of the programme portfolio, structure and governance in preparation for the structural 
reorganisation that would be implemented in 2011; invites the Authority to inform the discharge 
authority of the conclusions drawn by the review and of the measures it has adopted and implemented 
to address them;  
36. Welcomes the Authority’s plans to enhance its medium-term planning with a view to better involving 
the Member States in the Authority’s work and better pool its resources across Europe; supports the 
Authority in strengthening its cooperation with Member States in the area of risk assessment;  
37. Underlines the need for the Authority to ensure that its advice is of a high quality and is independent, 
in order to guarantee compliance with Union safety standards, scientific excellence and independence 
on all matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety, and plant protection; recom ­
mends, particularly in the interests of transparency, measures to further foster and monitor internal 
rules on declarations of interest by staff of the Authority and by experts working for the Authority;  
38. Considers that the main tasks of the Authority are the provision of independent scientific advice on 
matters with a direct or indirect impact on food safety, the conduct of risk assessments to provide 
Union institutions, Member States and policy-making bodies with a sound scientific basis for defining 
policy-driven legislative or regulatory measures and the collection and analysis of scientific data;  
Internal audit  
39. Acknowledges that six ‘very important’ recommendations from the IAS still need to be implemented 
and that three of them have already been delayed for over 12 months; notes in particular that these 
delays concern: information security management, the contract renewal process and transparency of 
decision-making, and filing and archiving policy; calls, therefore, on the Authority to rapidly address 
these deficiencies, and to inform the discharge authorities of the results achieved;  
40. Draws attention to its recommendations from previous discharge reports, as set out in the Annex to 
this resolution;  
41. 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 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/373  
( 1 ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0164 (see page 388 of this Official Journal).
ANNEX  
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OVER PAST YEARS  
European Food Safety 
Authority  2006  2007  2008  2009  
Performance  No risk assessment or defined 
appropriate performance 
indicators, or documented systems 
or internal control procedures 
governing its activities  n.a. Calls on the Authority to set SMART objectives 
and RACER indicators, as well as to make a Gannt 
diagram → promoting a results-oriented approach  — Advises the Authority to strengthen the 
planning and monitoring of budget processes 
relating to differentiated appropriations 
— Underlines the need for the authority to ensure 
that its advice is of a high quality and is 
independent. Recommends measures to further 
foster and monitor internal rules on declarations 
of interest by staff or the authority and by 
experts working for the Authority 
— Requests that the Court of Auditors undertake 
performance audits on the Authority  
Budgetary and financial 
management/Pro ­
curement  — The annuality principle was not 
strictly observed: A large 
number of transfers were made 
with a high concentration of 
them at the year-end (31 of the 
49 transfers) 
— Weaknesses in the procurement 
procedures: the selection 
criteria were not stated; the 
price-evaluation method not 
defined till the evaluation 
procedure was under way; 
vague description of the quality 
criteria  — The annuality principle was not 
strictly observed: weaknesses in 
the programming, the 
programming and the 
budgeting of the planned 
activities 
— Weaknesses in the budgetary 
management: in respect of the 
contributions given by the 
Commission to Croatia and 
Turkey (pre-accession strategy), 
they should have been treated 
as assigned revenue in the 
budget. None the less, they 
were treated as if they were 
part of the normal Community 
subsidy  — The annuality principle was not strictly 
observed: weaknesses in programming, 
monitoring contractual deadlines and the 
Authority’s budget → 
(1) Calls on the Authority to improve its 
budget management in order to reduce its 
carry-over amount: 23 % in 2008; 16 % in 
2007; 20 % in 2006; 
(2) A high amount of commitments had to be 
cancelled (37 % of commitments for 
operational activities carried over from 
2007 and 26 % from 2006) 
— Calls on the Commission to examine ways of 
ensuring that the principle of needs-based cash 
management is implemented in full → high 
cash reserves (EUR 19 990 492,26)  — Calls on the Authority to strengthen the budget 
processes related to its differentiated 
appropriations and planning and monitoring of 
its multiannual implementation 
— Urges the Authority it improves its budget 
management in order to reduce its high carry- 
over amounts, stresses that the Court of 
Auditors has flagged up carry-overs of 
appropriations to the following year, this 
situation demonstrates weaknesses in the 
Authority’s contract management and 
monitoring of the remittance of reports and cots 
statements 
— Court of Auditors pointed out that 
commitments for operational activities carried 
over from the previous year had to be cancelled, 
urges the Authority to remedy this situation and 
to notify the Court of Auditors of the measures 
taken 
— Notes that the Court of Auditors reported 
difficulties in the implementation of the 2009 
work programme, calls on the Authority to take 
the necessary measures to remedy these 
deficienciesEN L 286/374 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
European Food Safety 
Authority  2006  2007  2008  2009  
Human resources  No realistic recruitment objectives  — The Authority was able to 
achieve its recruitment 
objectives and fill 273 of the 
300 posts in its establishment 
plan: the audit of the 
recruitment procedures showed 
that in general neither the 
weightings of the selection 
criteria to be applied nor the 
threshold scores for going on 
to the next stage of the 
competitions had been decided 
upon by the selection board 
before the deadline fixed in the 
vacancy notice  n.a. n.a.  
Internal audit  n.a.  n.a.  20 out of the 25 recommendations (80 %) made 
by the IAS and the IAC have been implemented  — Is concerned that out of the 48 
recommendations, one is considered critical, 27 
very important and 20 important but no 
information has been given to the discharge 
authority on the content of these 
recommendations, urges the Executive Director 
of the Authority to provide this information 
— Reiterates its demand for the Authority to take 
appropriate measures in cases of conflicts of 
interest, invites the Authority to initiate a survey 
of the potential conflicts of interest of its leading 
scientists, board, and panel members, so that 
possible omissions in the declarations of interest 
can be detected and followed by action in a 
timely mannerEN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/375