RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 17 April 2013  
with observations forming an integral part of the Decision on discharge for implementation of the 
European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section X — European External Action 
Service  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011 (  1 ), 
— having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 
(COM(2012) 436 — C7-0235/2012) (  2 ), 
— having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the 
financial year 2011, 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 2011 
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 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 (  6 ), and in particular Articles 164, 165, 166 and 167 
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 Foreign Affairs (A7-0099/2013),  
A. whereas the European External Action Services (EEAS) was set up by Article 27(3) of the Treaty on 
European Union and became operational on 1 January 2011,  
B. whereas according to Recital 1 of Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the 
organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (  7 ), the EEAS is a ‘functionally 
autonomous body of the Union under the authority of the High Representative [of the Union for 
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy]’ (‘the High Representative’),  
C. whereas the Commission has legal primacy over the management of operational expenditure; whereas a 
division of responsibilities between the EEAS and the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments attached to 
the Commission has been established,  
D. whereas the EEAS is responsible for the financial management of the administrative expenditure of its 
headquarters and Union delegations,  
E. whereas the EEAS budget for 2011 consisted of pro-rata budget transfers from the Commission and the 
General Secretariat of the Council,EN L 308/140 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013  
( 1 ) OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.  
( 2 ) OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ C 344, 12.11.2012, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 130.  
( 5 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 6 ) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.  
( 7 ) OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 30.
1. Notes that on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors concluded that the payments as a 
whole for the year ended on 31 December 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the 
institutions and bodies were free from material error;  
2. Notes that while 2011 was the first financial year for the EEAS, it is, however, fully responsible for the 
financial year 2011 and has to ensure strict compliance with the legislation; urges the EEAS to examine 
what lessons can be learned from the first year of operation;  
3. Points out that in the 2011 annual report, the Court of Auditors included observations on the EEAS 
concerning the payment of social allowances and benefits to staff members, the conclusion of contracts 
with temporary agents, the management of a contract for the provision of security services and 
procurement procedures; urges the EEAS to take the necessary steps to address those observations;  
4. Is concerned that the Court of Auditors found that non-compliance with the rules has lead to a limited 
number of incorrect payments to staff members, legal uncertainty for temporary staff and for the EEAS, 
failure to respect the Financial Regulation and unrecovered VAT and a breach of the procurement rules 
which all Union institutions are bound to comply with; points out that the EEAS is fully responsible for 
its operation and notes that the EEAS has stated it has taken the necessary steps to avoid the recurrence 
of non-compliance; requests that the EEAS, in the context of the 2012 discharge procedure, informs 
Parliament of the results;  
5. Takes note of the replies given to the Court of Auditors’ observations and agrees with its recom ­
mendations that steps need to be taken to ensure that staff deliver at appropriate intervals documents 
confirming their personal situation; notes that EEAS, together with the Office for the Administration 
and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), is planning to implement a system for the timely 
monitoring of those documents; in addition the EEAS should further improve the design, coordination 
and performance of procurement procedures through appropriate checks and better guidance;  
6. Regrets that according to the Court of Auditors’ observations, the risk of making incorrect or undue 
payments if the circumstances of staff members have changed still remains in 2012, although the EEAS 
has introduced a yearly update mechanism; calls on the EEAS to attach information on the implemen ­
tation of this new mechanism in its 2012 annual activity report;  
7. Notes that at the end of 2011, the final budget for EEAS headquarters was EUR 188 000 000, with an 
execution rate of 91 % and was EUR 276 100 000 for the delegations, with a lower execution rate of 
around 89 %; takes note that the budget of the delegations had to be supplemented by the Commission 
to a total of EUR 252 400 000, having an execution rate of 85 %; notes also that at the end of 2012, 
the final execution of 2011 budget showed an execution rate of 97 % for the headquarters and 97 % 
for the delegations;  
8. Is concerned that after an amending budget and some transfers from the Commission and within 
services in 2011, underspending and carrying over of appropriations continues to be quite high; 
suggests the development of key performance indicators to monitor the most critical areas in order 
to improve the budget execution over the coming years;  
9. Recalls that the EEAS is a recently created structure resulting from the consolidation of several different 
services and that 2011 was its first operational year with numerous technical challenges to be 
overcome, particularly in procurement and recruitment; notes, furthermore, that the excessive adminis ­
trative burden resulting from setting up arrangements are not likely to be repeated in subsequent years;  
10. Highly appreciates the detailed response given to a wide range of written and oral questions made by 
the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control that went far beyond the EEAS’s 
administrative expenditure;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/141
11. Notes the observations on some weaknesses relating to the procurement procedure and tendering and 
calls on the EEAS to correct them without undue delay;  
12. Notes the importance of the current discharge in setting the framework for future discharge exercises 
and believes that it will reinforce the expectations of future developments and improvements in the 
effectiveness of the EEAS and its operations; calls on the High Representative to provide a review of the 
organisation and functioning of the EEAS, accompanied, if necessary, by proposals for a revision of 
Decision 2010/427/EU by mid-2013;  
13. Believes that the discharge procedure cannot be used to make detailed comparisons of the prevailing 
conditions in which the EEAS has to operate across 140 locations, which range from those which are 
peaceful and ordered to others which are effectively war zones; finds that those locations display a wide 
variety of living environments;  
14. Acknowledges that the challenges of budget implementation in third countries are very different from 
those within the Union; asks for a clear allocation and coordination of roles and responsibilities of the 
Commission and the EEAS as regards programming and implementation of the budget in third coun ­
tries;  
15. Notes the intense period of recruitment in the EEAS’s first year of operations to ensure a minimum of 
delay for it to be at full capacity in staffing terms; notes, furthermore, that there are some particular 
delegations where posts are harder to fill because of the level of risk in their locations;  
16. Regrets that the proportion of staff coming from the newer Member States is very low when compared 
to staff from the EU-15; emphasises the need for a greater gender and, as much as possible, 
geographical balance in the recruitment and the appointment of staff; urges the EEAS to develop 
appropriate mechanisms and to take the necessary measures to have a better and more balanced 
representation in due time; welcomes the fact that the number of vacant posts has been decreasing; 
urges the EEAS to use the unoccupied posts to enforce the geographical balance at all levels of staff;  
17. Notes that there are directorates with 22, 27 and 29 staff members and managing directorates with 44 
staff members; points out that there is a high number of management positions compared to other 
institutions and a relative surfeit of high-grade posts, which is seriously disproportionate in comparison 
with the other institutions; calls on the EEAS to clarify the reason for this and urges the High 
Representative to reduce this top-heavy administration; takes the view that the explanations the 
EEAS has provided thus far on this matter are partly legitimate, and calls on the relevant departments 
to establish, for the medium and long term, a roadmap and appropriate methods with a view to 
correcting this relative imbalance;  
18. Reiterates its wish to see, as soon as possible, the establishment of a human resources policy that 
reflects the political priorities of the Union and the actual requirements on the ground; points out in 
this connection that a concerted approach with the Commission is vital in order to optimise the profile 
of delegation staff (  1 ); 
19. Calls for more transparency as regards the competences of the EEAS’s administrative structure and the 
reduction of dual competences; requests the publication of the schedule of responsibilities; takes the 
view that the inefficiency of the current situation risks seriously impairing the reputation of the EEAS;  
20. Notes with satisfaction the performance and management of 8 800 candidates, 1 300 interviews and 
118 vacancies to be filled; regrets, however, that there is no overview on how often a candidate was 
invited to interview and that thus the process cannot be considered as fully transparent; invites the 
EEAS to get a better overview on the costs of the interviews;EN L 308/142 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013  
( 1 ) See also the recommendations set out in Court of Auditors Special Report No 18/2012, ‘European Union assistance to 
Kosovo related to the rule of law’.
21. Urges the newly appointed EEAS staff to give a declaration on their honour that they have not worked 
for intelligence services in the past;  
22. Considers the responsibilities of the Union Special Representatives to be very unclear; asks to receive a 
discriminated note on how the budget they receive to implement their mandate is used;  
23. Notes that 39,5 % of Union ambassadors come from Member States; recalls the agreement that one- 
third of posts should be filled by staff from Member States; urges the High Representative implement 
the agreement, which means middle and senior posts are to be included in that quota;  
24. Points out that there is an imbalance in delegations between staff members of the EEAS and the 
Commission; urges that more EEAS staff be transferred from headquarters to delegations within the 
limits of the budget;  
25. Emphasises the difficult situation faced by the delegations with the fewest members of staff as a result 
of the complex and rigid rules governing the delegation of payment authorisation between EEAS and 
Commission staff; calls on the EEAS and the Commission to consider how the procedure for auth ­
orising funds might be made easier whilst ensuring that financial control rules are complied with;  
26. Emphasises the importance of ensuring that the operational staff, finance staff, and the monitoring and 
auditing staff possess the necessary skills to carry out their tasks; demands that the EEAS and the 
Commission focus their training programmes on the enhancement of those skills and report to 
Parliament on progress achieved;  
27. Draws attention to the cost-inflating procedure of the annual salary adjustment method for local staff in 
Union delegations; believes that that methodology can be made more efficient and cost-effective; asks 
the EEAS to use calculation methods based on independent and objective selection of reference 
organisations in the same or similar locations; suggests that a locally operating United Nations’ 
agency be added as a fixed component and that two Member State embassies and two local 
employers be included — with, in each case, one to be determined by the employee and one by 
the employer — in order to obtain an appropriate average; urges that a mechanism be established to 
relieve the Union ambassador of his responsibility for salary negotiations with local staff and for the 
reference organisations to be chosen for a period of five years;  
28. Expresses its concern over the high rate of absence in Union delegations and suggests that the EEAS 
re-examine the reasons behind such absences; urges the EEAS to correct the imbalances based on the 
results of the exam and to provide Parliament with figures of absenteeism on an annual basis; suggests 
the reconsideration of such procedures in the context that the delegation staff combine their periods of 
professional training in Brussels with their rest leave as much as possible; invites the Commission, when 
revising Annex X to the Staff Regulations (third countries), to bring leave entitlements and other locally 
non-working days of staff in delegations into line with other diplomatic representations there;  
29. Expresses concern about the administrative shortcomings in the Union delegations in Afghanistan, 
Djibouti, Guyana, Solomon Islands and Zambia; asks for a report on the state of play about those 
shortcomings including security contracts; expects also a report on the situation about internal control 
standards in the Union delegations in Liberia and Iraq; asks for a state of play about compliance rates of 
the Union delegations in Egypt and Malawi and for an update on security contracts in the Union 
delegations in the West Bank, Haiti, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Libya and Lebanon;  
30. Asks for clarification as to why a security company under contract with the Union delegation to 
Afghanistan, subject to OLAF investigation, has recently been awarded a new contract of about EUR 
50 million in the same delegation;EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/143
31. Notes with satisfaction that synergies with the Commission’s Directorate-General for Development and 
Cooperation — EuropeAid and the national diplomacies are well functioning and invites the EEAS to 
keep Parliament informed; accepts that there is still work to be done in relation to the consular services; 
asks that Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs be engaged in that exercise;  
32. Calls on the EEAS to forward its staff screening report to Parliament;  
33. Urges the EEAS to maximise the benefits of economies of scale by creating new synergies within the 
EEAS headquarters and delegations as well as in cooperation with Member States and national 
diplomatic services, in the spirit of a true Union external policy and services; emphasises the need, 
in that respect, to seek, as much as possible, the co-location of services in third countries, for the sake 
of enhanced exchange of information and savings;  
34. In the context of the forthcoming entry into force of the EU-Central America Association Agreement, 
emphasises the need for the Union to have a delegation in Panama, an important partner and the only 
country in the region without such a delegation; calls on the EEAS to take action to this end as soon as 
possible;  
35. Insists on an explanation for the recall of the Union ambassador to Libya;  
36. Requests that the EEAS submit all information on the Service Level Agreements established with the 
Council and the Commission respectively;  
37. Welcomes the fact that the revised Financial Regulation obliges the EEAS to provide a working 
document on its building policy to the Parliament by 1 June each year; stresses that the revised 
Financial Regulation allows the EEAS to take loans for the acquisition of its offices and residences; 
urges the EEAS to maintain cost effective operation and to find appropriate financing solutions 
consulting the Commission’s Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs;  
38. Is concerned over the increasing rental costs of the EEAS’s offices and residences (i.e. an increase of over 
50 % of the Moscow offices of the Union delegation to Russia from year 2010 to 2011); urges the 
EEAS to maintain cost effective operation and to provide all the necessary information to the discharge 
authority;  
39. Believes that the forthcoming review of the EEAS is the forum where a detailed analysis can be made of 
the compatibility between the resources available and the functions to be carried out by the EEAS and 
any changes required to ensure the highest level of efficiency in its operations; believes that an 
evaluation of property in use by the EEAS should involve comparisons with other diplomatic 
missions in the same location rather than between EEAS facilities in very different countries; believes 
that, in evaluating the price of property, contracts should be actively monitored in relation to the 
benefit accruing to the Union and that changes should be made where necessary; considers that, in this 
evaluation, it should be made clear whether the property is used for purposes other than housing, and 
stipulated which part of the property is being used and for how long and how; believes also that there 
should not be any differences between housing which should be similar, without abuses occurring, so 
that the quality of life as regards housing is similar from one region to another, depending on the 
availability and cost of the properties; calls for a multiannual plan to be submitted for Union buildings 
and staff safety and building security in all third countries with Union delegations;  
40. Calls on the EEAS to identify and consider, in accordance with its political and contractual obligations, 
every possible option for making major savings in the long term so as to ensure that the variation in its 
annual budget — the increase in which, for legitimate reasons, is proportionally greater than that of the 
other institutions’ budgets — can have a multiplier effect;  
41. Draws attention to the need to guarantee a comprehensive security check for local agents in the 
delegations;EN L 308/144 Official Journal of the European Union 16.11.2013
42. Strongly supports the EEAS’s ‘smart savings initiative’; asks the EEAS to provide an implementing report 
which shows the financial results and how this saved money was reused; requests the Commission to 
also adopt that initiative;  
43. Notes the high frequency of travel among Union delegation staff to headquarters with various purposes; 
regrets that it is not possible to have an independent inspection authority to evaluate the necessity of 
those official journeys; requests that the High Representative take this into consideration and report to 
Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on that matter; calls for a study to be drawn up on the 
subject of frequent travel by Union delegation staff assessing the feasibility of introducing videocon ­
ferencing in order to reduce travel costs and the amount of time spent by staff travelling;  
44. Welcomes the savings already made by using innovative solutions like videoconferencing for job 
interviews; calls on the EEAS to come up, as much as possible, with similar proposals also for the 
training of staff;  
45. Strongly urges the EEAS, in regard to the travel arrangements of its delegations to its headquarters, to 
adopt practices similar to those applied by Member States in comparable circumstances; insists that, 
with regard to flights, the EEAS bring itself into line with Member State practices;  
46. Welcomes the establishment of a working group that examined ways to improve the working methods 
at its headquarters and the fact that conclusions have already been implemented; asks to be informed of 
those conclusions and of the performance improvements achieved;  
47. Takes the view that some of the indicators analysed in the self-assessment of internal control standards 
would need to be revised or updated;  
48. Considers that the statistics in the annual activity report, especially in relation to data on delegations, 
are not sufficiently accurate; calls on the EEAS to improve its performance by establishing key 
performance indicators that will give some continuity to the evaluation of the performance of the 
delegations; calls on the High Representative to report to the Committee on Budgetary Control in this 
connection;  
49. Welcomes that the EEAS committed itself to full cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office 
(OLAF) and is finalising a specific Memorandum of Understanding with the OLAF to elevate their 
cooperation to a higher level;  
50. Is of the opinion that improvements need to be made on the quality of the financial and administrative 
management of the Union delegations and in certain headquarters’ divisions that were not identified in 
the annual activity report; expects that next year’s report will identify those divisions and report on 
progresses made;  
51. Calls on the EEAS to submit comprehensive details on how its internal control and supervision 
mechanism works as regards the management of funds and expenditure; also calls on the EEAS to 
explain its policy on Parliament’s access to internal inspection reports;  
52. Points out that a number of EEAS delegations operate in a high risk environment in terms of 
corruption and fraud; believes that it is pivotal to the protection of the Union’s financial interests 
that EEAS staff receives the appropriate training and awareness building in order to detect any 
misconduct; believes that a comprehensive whistleblower policy is essential to the protection of the 
Union’s financial interests;  
53. Considers that budget support systems for third country governments are not properly audited and calls 
for a better scrutiny of the financial operations at an earlier stage; insists that an independent national 
audit body must be an ultimate condition for granting budget support;  
54. Reminds the EEAS of the responsibility to deliver concrete results and emphasises the reciprocity 
between deliverables and the overall budget.EN 16.11.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 308/145