RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 17 April 2013  
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 2011  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 
2011,  
— having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Food Safety 
Authority for the financial year 2011, together with the Authority’s replies (  1 ), 
— having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 – C7-0041/2013),  
— 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 ) (‘the Financial Regulation’), 
and in particular Article 185 thereof,  
— having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (  3 ), and in particular Article 208 thereof,  
— having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (  4 ) 
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 (  5 ), 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 (A7-0074/2013),  
A. whereas the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual 
accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) for the financial year 2011 are reliable 
and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,  
B. whereas the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2011 was EUR 77 309 800, compared to 
EUR 74 700 000 in 2010, which represents an increase of 3,49 %; whereas the Authority is wholly 
financed by a contribution from the Union,  
Budgetary and financial management  
1. Acknowledges that budget monitoring efforts during the financial year continue to contribute to the 
consistently high budget implementation rate of 98,47 % (98,8 % in 2010);EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/229  
( 1 ) OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 92.  
( 2 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.  
( 5 ) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.
2. Notes that the payment appropriations execution rate was 82,05 %, which represents a minor decrease 
in comparison to the previous year (83,51 %);  
3. Notes that in 2011 an amount of EUR 78 800 000 was made available from the Union budget to the 
Authority; takes note that 334 posts out of 355 had been filled by the end of 2011 and that 109 
contract agents and seconded national experts were employed by the Authority; asks the Authority to 
improve the occupation rate but is fully aware that the Authority is faced with certain shortcomings 
concerning transport, due to its location;  
4. Reminds the Authority to respect in an improved way the principle of annuality; considers the year 
2011 special, due to the movement to the new headquarters and the delayed settlement of payments in 
this respect;  
Building’s policy  
5. Notes that the Authority purchased a new headquarters building in December 2011 for 
EUR 36,8 million which will be paid in quarterly instalments over 25 years, resulting in interest 
payments of EUR 18,5 million; notes, moreover, that the Court of Auditors questioned whether a 
more economic alternative could have been sought from the budgetary authority in accordance with 
the principle of sound financial management and ensuring full respect of the Financial Regulation;  
6. Acknowledges from the Authority that it submitted the building project to the budgetary authority in 
2005 with a deferred purchase price payment agreement over 25 years, and the budgetary authority 
approved the building project; notes that at the Court of Auditors’ suggestion, a request was made to 
the Commission to seek additional payment credits in order to cover the full purchase with only one 
down-payment; notes, however, that there was no possibility to increase the appropriations towards the 
Authority to cover a single down-payment in the current climate of tight expenditure; notes that the 
modalities adopted for that purchase led to a reduction of the cost of the Authority’s premises in 
comparison to the rent solution previously used;  
Transfers  
7. Notes from the Court of Auditors’ report and the Authority’s annual activity report (AAR) that in 2011, 
13 budgetary transfers were made; notes that, in particular, EUR 2,46 million was transferred from Title 
I to the infrastructure and IT budget lines of Title II, aiming to provide the resources for the adaptation 
of IT systems and financial systems related to the reorganisation and the migration to the accrual-based 
accounting financial system, and to reinforce the resources available for the move to the final seat and 
equipment for the final seat; notes, moreover, that transfers were carried out within Titles II and III; 
notes with concern the Court of Auditors’ remark that the situation indicates weaknesses in budget 
planning and implementation and is at odds with the principle of specification;  
Conflict of interest and transparency  
8. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors carried out an audit aimed at evaluating the policies and 
procedures for the management of conflict of interest situations for four European agencies, including 
the European Food Safety Authority and presented the results of the audit in the Court of Auditors’ 
Special Report No 15/2012;  
9. Notes with concern that according to the findings of the Court of Auditors, at the time of completion 
of the field work (October 2011), the Authority did not adequately manage conflict of interest 
situations; notes, however, that in the meantime, the Authority had already developed advanced 
policies for managing conflicts of interest; is concerned, nevertheless, that these policies have not led 
to the desired results;  
10. Welcomes the organisation of a mandatory session on ethics and integrity for all members of the 
Management Board in October 2012; calls on the Management Board to enforce effectively its Code of 
Conduct and adopt provisions preventing and sanctioning revolving door cases in order to avoid 
situations similar to that of its former Chairperson in the future;EN L 308/230 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013
11. Notes that the Authority scheduled an evaluation of its independence policy by the end of 2013 and 
committed to consider, inter alia, the possibility of publishing the outcomes of breaches of trust 
procedures, including the outcomes of the procedure verifying the integrity of the scientific review 
and to broaden and reinforce the mandate of its Committee on Conflict of Interests, for instance with a 
similar mandate to the Committee for Ethical Standards and Prevention of Conflict of Interest of the 
French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES); expects the 
Authority to inform the discharge authority on this matter before October 2013 if possible;  
12. Calls on the Authority to start a structured dialogue with civil society on matters relating to conflicts of 
interest and to invite those organisations concerned to openly discuss matters of common interest 
based on a agreed agenda and to inform the discharge authority on the outcome of these deliberations 
at least twice a year; notes that the Authority has intensified this dialogue with stakeholders and civil 
society; considers that those dialogues need to be institutionalised and taken into account by the 
Management Board of the Authority;  
13. Is concerned that the Authority was criticised for a lack of transparency with respect to the publication 
of annual declarations of interest and the absence of training on conflicts of interest; demands that 
action be taken on those issues and urges the Authority to report back to the discharge authority on 
the activities taken; welcomes the fact that all annual declarations of interests of the Authority’s experts 
are now published and accessible on the Authority’s website;  
14. Urges the Authority to keep conflicts of interest high on the priority list in order to protect its 
credibility and to safeguard the public’s trust in food safety, and to indicate, as detailed and 
precisely as possible, how it will implement the main recommendations from the report of the 
Court of Auditors and from Parliament’s resolutions; urges the Authority to consider conflicts of 
interest with the utmost care, given the start of the revision of its founding regulation, which 
provides an opportunity to reach the highest governance standards as described by the Organisation 
for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), and which would influence positively the Auth ­
ority’s governance structure, independence and scientific quality; considers that the revision of the 
founding regulation of the Authority is a major opportunity to initiate radical change at the Authority, 
who is responsible for objective scientific advice on food and environmental safety at Union level;  
15. Strongly suggests that in order to prevent the Authority’s staff from moving directly from their position 
to work in a similar post in industry or related lobby-agency, or vice versa, an adequate cooling off 
period should be established and respected for the specific areas of work, in order to avoid conflicts of 
interest;  
16. Notes that the Authority has taken a number of steps following the Court of Auditors’ audit and 
publication of the Special Report No 15/2012, inter alia:  
— in 2007, the Authority introduced a comprehensive framework for avoiding potential conflicts of 
interest, and since then, it has regularly reviewed and updated it,  
— since 2011, the Authority has strengthened that framework with the adoption of its revised policy 
on independence and scientific decision-making processes; is, however, concerned about the 
adequacy of the revised policy, pointing to numerous cases of conflict of interests exposed in 
2012 by two watchdog non-governmental organisations (NGOs) - Corporate Europe Observatory 
and Earth Open Source; demands that further improvements, including the banning of links with 
industry-related bodies, be made to the Authority’s independence policy,  
— at the end of 2013, a review of the Authority’s policy and implementing rules on independence is 
scheduled,  
— in July 2012, the Authority applied the framework provided by the Commission on ethics and 
integrity and has adopted a specific gift policy,  
— in 2012, an ethics adviser was appointed;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/231
urges the Authority to continue to act on the recommendations of the Court of Auditors in order to 
avoid any conflicts of interest among its various governing and operational structures and to report to 
the discharge authority on the implementation of the abovementioned policies and procedures, as well 
as on any further developments as regards the management of conflicts of interest before October 
2013;  
17. Acknowledges the Authority’s efforts to improve its prevention and management of conflict of 
interests; notes, however, that the independence and competence of its external experts remain ques ­
tioned by watchdog NGOs or even fellow food safety experts as for instance in the case of the working 
group on endocrine disruptors experts; emphasises the fact that as a consequence, the Authority’s work 
is challenged such as during the Joint JRC-NIEHS Workshop on Low Dose Effects of Endocrine Active 
Chemicals in Berlin in December 2012;  
18. Notes that the Management Board elected its Chair in a publicly-held meeting; recalls, however, that in 
the 2010 discharge procedure, Parliament called for an open ballot for electing the Management Board’s 
Chair and expects its request to be implemented;  
19. Notes that the OECD guidelines, on which the Court of Auditors has based its work on the Special 
Report No 15/2012, while offering an international benchmark on the issue, are not designed for an 
agency and do not meet the specific needs of the decentralised agencies; commends the Commission’s 
intention to come up with guidelines on the management of conflicts of interest, as provided for in its 
‘Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies’;  
20. Underlines the Authority’s commitment to launch its first evaluation of a random sample of declar ­
ations of interest in October2012 to verify their coherence with its newly adopted independence policy 
and implementing rules; notes however that protocols still needed to be completed, which led to the 
postponement of the evaluation; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority on the 
reasons behind this delay and on the calendar foreseen for the organisation of the evaluation;  
21. Welcomes the Authority’s plans to start a pilot project in 2013 to source part of the scientific work 
that is currently carried out by external experts within Working Groups in the area of regulated 
products; notes that this initiative will kick-off in the areas of food ingredients and GMO; requests 
that the Authority provide the discharge authority with more information on progress made;  
22. Notes with satisfaction that since 2011, the Authority has introduced in its AAR a special section 
describing the actions taken to implement its independence policy, thus partly answering the recom ­
mendation formulated in Parliament’s resolution of 23 October 2012 on discharge to the Authority for 
the financial year 2010 (  1 ); 
23. Welcomes the fact that the curricula vitae of the Authority’s Executive Director, Senior management 
and panel experts are now available on its website together with their respective declaration of interest; 
notes the Authority’s efforts for greater transparency but remains of the opinion that these provisions 
should also apply to any in-house expert, as expressed during the 2010 discharge procedure; under ­
stands that work on this issue is ongoing; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of 
the progress made on this matter as soon as possible;  
Internal audit  
24. Notes from the Authority that in 2011 the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of the Commission carried out 
an assurance audit of operational planning and budgeting, while the Internal Audit unit (IA) carried out 
three assurance audits, namely the process of selection of panel members, a special review of expert 
contributions to scientific opinions (post conflict of interest), as well as an interim review of the cost 
claimed in relation to the final seat of the Authority;EN L 308/232 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013  
( 1 ) OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 77.
25. Notes with satisfaction that out of 11 recommendations (none ‘critical’, two ‘very important’, seven 
‘important’ and two ‘desirable’) made by the IAS audit, all have been accepted by management and five 
out of six outstanding ‘very important’ recommendations have been implemented and await follow-up 
by IAS, and implementation of the remaining one is in progress; also notes that the IA had made one 
very important and two important recommendations, and among its 11 outstanding very important 
recommendations five are implemented and six are in progress; notes that no critical recommendations 
remain open;  
26. Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a 
horizontal nature, to its resolution of 17 April 2013 (  1 ) on the performance, financial management and 
control of the agencies.EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/233  
( 1 ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0134 (See page 374 of this Official Journal).