Communication from the Commission - A new type of office for managing support and administrative tasks at the European Commission
Date: 2002-05-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, administrative formalities, management

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.5.2002
COM(2002) 264 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

A new type of office for managing support and administrative tasks at the European
Commission

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION.

A new type of office for managing support and administrative tasks at the European
Commission

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

3.

Reasons for the creation of offices............................................................................... 4

Increased quality and efficiency................................................................................... 4

Potential savings .......................................................................................................... 5

Potential risks............................................................................................................... 5

Existing types of offices............................................................................................... 6

Inter-institutional office ............................................................................................... 6

Commission Office ...................................................................................................... 7

A new type of Offices .................................................................................................. 7

3.1.

The principal criteria of responsibility......................................................................... 8

3.1.1. A clear division of  functions between Board and Office Director.............................. 8

3.1.2. Allocation of responsibilities among the Board, the DG of reference and the Office . 8

3.1.3. More independence for each Office............................................................................. 9

3.1.4. A control system and an appropriate audit system....................................................... 9

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

Structure ....................................................................................................................... 9

Inter-institutional offices............................................................................................ 10

Areas where management by Offices can be considered........................................... 10

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 11

2

INTRODUCTION

The  December  1999  communication  containing  general  guidelines  for  a  policy  of
externalising1  the  management  of  Community  programmes  and  the  White  Paper  on
administrative  reform2  outlined  a  new  externalisation  policy  based  on  the  vision  of  an
administration re-focused on its core tasks and activities.

The  Commission  mandated  a  Planning  and  Co-ordination  Group  (PCG)  to  translate  these
guidelines  into  concrete  measures.  The  controlled  externalisation  of  the  management  of
Community programmes and its corollary, the reintegration of the technical assistance offices,
was the first field to be tackled.

In  December  2000  the  Commission  presented  to  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  a
communication3 on externalisation of the management of Community programmes, including
a proposal for a Council framework regulation for a new type of executive agency, the most
innovative instrument in the Commission's externalisation strategy.

In  November  2001,  the  Commission  approved  a  communication4  on  the  management  of
Community  programmes  or  actions  by  networks  of  national  agencies.  This  is  a  form  of
externalisation  based  on  delegation  by  the  Commission  of  implementing  responsibilities  to
national entities with a public service mission guaranteed by the State which serve as partners
for implementing certain Community policies.

In its communication on Matching the Commission’s activities with its human resources5, the
Commission  identified  a  number  of  tasks  other  than  the  management  of  Community
programmes  that  might  lend  themselves  to  externalisation  including  tasks  relating  to  the
internal workings of the Commission as well inter-institutional activities. For this purpose the
creation of  separate  administrative  entities  has  been  envisaged.  Following  this  approach  the
Commission  has  recently  put  forward  a  proposal  for  establishing  an  inter-institutional
recruitment office6.

The term “office” is meant here to define administrative entities aimed at providing support
for  the  activities  of  other  Commission  departments  and/or  of  other  Community  Institutions.
However,  in  some  cases  the  term  office  has  been  used  either  for  what  are  in  fact  specific
Commission departments responsible for certain policies, or on an ad-hoc basis.

1

2

3

4 
5 
6 

Guidelines for a policy of externalisation, SEC(1999) 2051/7.
Reforming the Commission, COM(2000) 200.
Externalisation of the management of Community programmes, including presentation of a framework
regulation for a new type of executive agency, COM(2000)788 final, 13.12.2000.
COM 2001/648.
(SEC 2000/200).
COM (2002) 126 final.

3

                                                
Starting  from  the  explanation  of  the  advantages  and  risks  associated  with  the  creation  of
Commission offices, and an inventory and assessment of existing offices and their typology,
this communication defines a new type of support and administrative office.

These  new  offices  that  could  facilitate  the  reorganisation  of  the  Commission  in  the  light  of
Reform,  and  would  be  an  appropriate  instrument  to  prepare  the  evolution,  in  due  course,
towards  a  reinforced  inter-institutional  co-operation  by  pooling  together  a  number  of
administrative and support tasks. The new offices would also represent a tool implemented by
the Commission and/ or the other Institutions to meet the recognised demands for the optimal
use of resources, for high quality services, notably through the development of visible centres
of expertise.

The present communication aims at providing a framework within which the departments in
the Institution(s) could set up office-type structures in the future. It does not affect the status,
operation or management structures of existing offices.

From  a  functional  viewpoint,  the  new  type  of  office  is  clearly  different  from  the  executive
agencies.  The  Commission  would  entrust  these  agencies,  set  up  within  the  framework  of  a
Council Regulation and with legal personality, with certain tasks relating to the management
of  one  or  more  Community  programmes.  In  this  respect,  the  duration  of  existence  of  an
implementing  agency  is  closely  linked  to  the  duration  of  the  programme.  The  new  offices
would have a mandate linked to the performance of support and administrative tasks, which
can have a permanent nature and that are linked to the mandate of a Commission department.

1. 

REASONS FOR THE CREATION OF OFFICES

The  main  objective  underlying  the  creation  of  Offices  is  the  idea  of  empowering  structures
distinct from a Commission department - as currently conceived – with execution of tasks that
are not directly linked to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties or to its right of
initiative that, however, the Institution wants to keep under direct control.

The  purposes  for  delegating  the  execution  of  administrative  and  support  task  to  the  Offices
and numerous and diverse:

1.1. 

Increased quality and efficiency

The Offices would help achieve an increased level of quality and/or increased efficiency in
the services provided through:

- A strengthening of the visibility of the services provided. These better results will be sought
through a better directed and more integrated approach to the various factors contributing to
them,  and  by  even  more  effective  management  of  the  various  groups  of  activities  within
better  identified,  more  autonomous  and  more  functional  structures.  By  doing  this,  while
leaving fundamental decisions to the Commission and/or to the Directorates-General (DGs)
of  reference,  both  policy  and  management  in  each  field  can  be  brought  closer  to  ground-
roots reality and to users.

- The decentralisation of effective operational responsibilities. This will be achieved notably
through the definition of clear terms of reference, the full integration and management of the
own resources and budget of the Offices. Such an integrated approach will also fit  in well
with  the  aims  of  the  current  recasting  of  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  system  for
(activity-based  management  and  activity-based
matching  activities  and 

resources 

4

budgeting).  In this  respect,  the  Office  would  provide  an  environment  in  which  the  service
providers would operate with a certain degree of stability, hence security, to ensure that the
essential  operational  requirements  of  the  Institution  are  met.  The  Office  director  could
therefore  better  plan  his/her  activities  and  deliver  a  high  quality  level  service  through  an
operational  structure.  In  order  to  reach  the  expected  level  of  stability,  it  is  essential  to
allocate  to  each  activity  the  necessary  human,  financial  and  computer  resources,  to  be
adapted  to  the  changes  occurring  in  the  working  environment.  First,  it  would  allow    the
resources necessary in the incipient phase to be identified, but it would also help to adapt the
resources of the Offices to the needs formulated by the user services.

- A more focused activity should allow the office to be more adaptable to customers’ needs
and react more swiftly to their demands.

1.2. 

Potential savings

Over the years the Offices should also help to achieve potential savings through:

–  the impact of the increased efficiency, as explained in the previous section;

–  further economies of scale from an improved inter-institutional approach.

This  objective  should  be  achieved  through  the  pooling  of  financial  and  human  resources,
while rationalising management and strengthening the efficiency and consistency of policies.
The feasibility of such an operation remains more based in political will than in the problems
of a technical nature, for which solutions can be found.

–  the use of New Contract Agents (NCAs) in accordance with the Commission proposal on

the use of external staff7. According to the final orientations in this domain, NCAs :

–  would be recruited under public law contracts,
–  would have a different status from Auxiliary Agents,
–  would be used only in specific structures, including the Offices,
–  would perform “non-core” tasks and
– 

always work under the guidance of permanent staff.

1.3. 

Potential risks

The creation of the Offices could present a number of potential risks.

Firstly, the issue of the overheads necessary for the functioning of each Office8 needs careful
consideration,  to  avoid  having  diseconomies  of  scale.  For  this  purpose,  the  offices  need  to
reach a sufficient minimum size which will allow them also to fully benefit from the existence
of  a  separate  establishment  plan.  The  critical  size  has  to  be  determined  on  a  case-by-case
basis,  notably  making  a  cost-benefit  analysis  that  will  determine  the  threshold  above  which
potential savings will compensate for diseconomies of scale. Particular attention has also to be
paid to the issue of coherence of functioning with the department (or Institutions) to which the
offices are linked; for this reason it is proposed to set up supervisory boards.

7 SEC(2001) 1697/7 of 30/10/2001, section 3.3 and Annex X.
8 Essentially human, financial and computer resources.

5

                                                
2. 

EXISTING TYPES OF OFFICES

The  word  “office”  is  currently  used  to  identify  several  existing  structures  which  respond  to
different  situations  and  whose  status,  operation  or  management  is  not  affected  by  the  new
type of office defined in the present communication.

Currently,  three  types  of  offices  have  been  identified:  the  inter-institutional  office
(Publications Office - OPOCE and the recently decided European Recruitment Office - ERO),
the  “internal”  Commission  office  and  the  “OLAF”  type  (European  Anti-Fraud  Office).  The
characteristics of the latter result from its particular mission and operating environment and,
therefore, are not necessarily transferable on other offices. Therefore, its analysis will not be
further developed.

The following features are common to the Offices:

(cid:1)  Offices do not benefit from legal personality. Though their establishment acts might
empower  them  in  certain  aspects  to  act  within  the  legal  context  (e.g.  to  conclude
contracts) they are not legal entities, unlike the Community agencies.

(cid:1)  Unlike  the  establishment  of  an  agency,  the  creation  of  an  office  represents  an
organisational  act  of  the  Institution(s),  formalised  through  a  decision  of  the
Commission (or joint decision of the Institutions in case of inter-institutional offices).

(cid:1)  The  posts  for  staffing  the  existing  Commission  offices  are  contained  in  the

Commission’s establishment plan.

(cid:1)  The Staff Regulations being applicable, the types of personnel to be employed in the
offices are essentially the same as in the Institutions. In the future, the Offices, unlike
the  Commission  departments,  will  be  allowed  to  use  the  New  Contract  Agents
formula.

(cid:1)  Current regulations allow for delegation of the powers of appointing authority, but to

a varying extent according to the status of the Office.

2.1. 

Inter-institutional office

The inter-institutional office is an  entity  which  does  not  form  an  integral  part  of  one  of  the
Institutions and is designed to carry out tasks that are common to several or all Institutions.
Assigning  such  tasks  to  an  office  has  the  advantages  of  accumulation  of  know-how,  of
economies of scale (especially for smaller entities) and of a coherent practice throughout the
Institutions.

The  inter-institutional  office  has  a  separate  budget  line  in  the  Commission’s  administrative
budget (Part A).  It also has a separate establishment plan that is  approved by the budgetary
authority. Under ABB from 2004, it will be proposed as an article and items under the policy
title “Commission’s Administration”, also with a separate establishment plan, and an annexed
breakdown of revenue and expenditure.

The  decision  to  set  up  an  inter-institutional  office  is  a  joint  decision  of  the  Institutions
concerned.

In  the  case  of  OPOCE  as  inter-institutional  office  the  basic  regulation  foresees  that  the
Commission acts equally as appointing authority, in accordance with the management board.

6

In  principle,  the  management  board  cannot  act  as  appointing  authority  for  the  director.  For
staff-related  issues  the  Commission,  which  is  the  AIPN  (Autorité  Investie  du  Pouvoir  de
Nomination  –  Appointing  Authority),  has  been  empowered  to  delegate  these  powers  to  the
director of the Office.

The  inter-institutional  office  is  headed  by  a  director  or  a  president  and  controlled  by  a
management board, to which he/she is responsible.

An  inter-institutional  office  has  to  adopt  its  own  rules  on  staff  policy,  always  in  the  full
respect of the staff regulations.

The inter-institutional office concludes contracts on behalf of the Institutions. Thus, it is not
the office which is party to court proceedings arising from that but the Institution concerned.
The  question of legal representation of an  inter-institutional  office,  therefore,  has  played  no
role up to now.

2.2. 

Commission Office

The current internal Commission offices is a Commission service, which however, differs in
certain  aspects  from  a  Directorate-General.  Currently,  the  Offices  are  either  totally
independent from a superior administrative department and report directly to a Commissioner
(European Community Humanitarian Office - ECHO) or to a Board (EuropeAid Co-operation
Office- AIDCO) or can be part of a DG (Food and Veterinary Office - FVO). This latter case
will not be referred to in the rest of this section, as de facto the FVO is a Directorate of the
Health  and  Consumers  Protection  DG  and  therefore  no  exceptions  apply  with  respect  to  all
other Directorates of the Commission

The “standard” Commission offices are so far fully integrated into the Commission’s section
of the budget, i. e. their staff is paid out of part A of this section and their lines for operational
expenditures form part of part B of this section. Therefore, the Commission has the possibility
to allocate its resources by internal organisational procedures and according to its priorities.

The  creation  of  an  office  is  an  organisational  act  of  the  Institution  formalised  by  a
Commission decision.

An  office  works  under  the  authority  of  a  head  of  office.  The  head  of  office  in  the  existing
Commission  offices  occupies  a  position  equivalent  in  function  (though  not  necessarily  in
grade) to that of a Director-General and, therefore, is responsible to a Commissioner.

The  Commission  acts  as  appointing  authority  and  the  rules  on  the  delegation  of  the  related
powers  apply.  For  staff-related  matters,  the  powers  of  the  appointing  authority  and  of  the
authority  authorised  to  conclude  contracts  in  the  case  of  a  Commission  office  lie  with  the
Commission but are delegated on the Head of Office.

The internal implementing rules of Commission offices are those of the Commission itself.

The Legal Service represents a Commission Office in court proceedings.

3. 

A NEW TYPE OF OFFICES

Recent and future evolutions both in terms of proposals for new rules on external staff and the
recast Financial Regulation will allow a new type of Commission office.

7

The new type of Commission office proposed hereunder can be seen either as an objective in
itself or as a first transitory step towards an inter-institutional office.

3.1. 

The principal criteria of responsibility

3.1.1.  A clear division of  functions between Board and Office Director

The College would define the terms of reference of the various Boards at the start and adopt
the mission statement of the Offices. The relevant Board would define the terms of reference
of each Office director and each work programme so that they can fulfil their functions within
a framework of complete responsibility and functional independence. The Board will meet on
a  regular  basis  in  order  to  take  decisions  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  work
programme  and  exercise  the  function  of  overall  control  over  the  functioning  of  the  Office.
The Board would not intervene in current management, which would be the responsibility of
the Office director.

3.1.2.  Allocation of responsibilities among the Board, the DG of reference and the Office

- Decisions  of principle  or  of  a  fundamental  nature,  depending  on  sector,  would  remain  the
responsibility of the College. In the case of inter-institutional offices, each Institution would
keep its own responsibility.

- All decisions of a legislative nature (such as staff rules or any directive linked with a policy
as  an  example)  would  remain  with  the  Commission,  but  the  relevant  Office  would  be
consulted.

The  above  decisions  would  be  prepared  in  the  DG  of  reference  in  co-operation  with  the
Offices.

- Decisions concerning the execution of policy decisions would be transferred to the Offices.
In case of doubt the Office director would consult the Board.

-  Consistency  and  the  authority  of  each  of  the  Boards  would  be  ensured  by  the  terms  of
reference  and  authority  delegated  by  the  College.  To  this  end,  the  chairman  of  each  Board
would report to his/her Commissioner on the implementation of the work programme.

8

3.1.3.  More independence for each Office

One  of  the  principles  of  the  administrative  reforms  is  to  encourage  greater  personal
responsibility at all levels. This would be facilitated by more management independence for
each  Office,  backed  by  the  allocation  of  all  the  resources  necessary  (human,  financial,  IT,
etc.) granted to the office in the framework of the annual budget procedure for achieving the
tasks  of  the  Office.  To  this  end,  each  Office  would  have  the  power  to  take  decisions  and
manage accordingly owing to the fact that, based on the recast Financial Regulation9:

-  appropriations  are  covered  by  a  specific  budget  line  within  the  Commission  section  and
outlined in detail in an annex to that section;

- the annex presents revenues and expenditures broken down according to budget sections;

- a separate establishment plan is annexed to that of the Commission;

- the Director of the Office is entitled to decide upon transfers between the individual budget
items of the annex;

- the Office director will be an appointing authority (AIPN).

As stated in section 2.1.2, under ABB from 2004, it will be proposed as an article and items
under  the  policy  title  “Commission’s  Administration”,  also  with  a  separate  establishment
plan, and an annexed breakdown of revenue and expenditure.

3.1.4.  A control system and an appropriate audit system

The same principles underlying the administrative reforms should apply to each Office.

-  As  authorising  officer  by  delegation,  the  Office  director  would  have  to  provide  the  same
formal  declaration  as  a  Director-General  or  Head  of  Service  in  order  to  give  reasonable
assurance of the good management of his/her resources.

-  In  line  with  the  spirit  of  the  general  reform  process,  the  Office  director’s  responsibilities
would  comprise  the  establishment  of  adequate  internal  control  mechanisms  and  audit
capability.

- The Commission's Internal Audit Service would remain competent for auditing the Offices.
The internal audit capabilities could be envisaged either separately for each Office, or could
be  concentrated  in  a  single  entity  common  to  all  the  Offices.  OLAF  would  have  all  access
rights to the new offices.

3.2. 

Structure

(1) The Offices would be under the political authority of the Commission.

(2) The Offices would each be supervised by its own Board of Directors (Board) appointed by
the College. The role of the Board would be to ensure supervision of the Offices by drawing
up their work programmes and the mission statement of each Office director and by assessing
the implementation of the agreed work programme through an annual management report.

9  Title V

9

                                                
(3)  Each  Board  would  be  chaired  by  the  Director-General  of  the  DG  to  which  the  Office
would  report  and  composed,  if  necessary,  of  the  Directorates-General  concerned  with  the
policy  to  be  followed  and  with  the  resources  to  implement  it,  the  'user'  DGs  and  other
departments. The DG of reference would provide the secretariat of the Board.

(4) The Office director would be an A2 official, but could be an A1 depending on the size of
the  Office.  The  Office  director  would  also  need  to  chair  the  various  internal  bodies  and
working groups tasked with the co-ordination of the various stake-holders for a given policy.

(5)  An  interface  should  be  maintained  in  the  DGs  to  ensure  consistency  with  the  policy
guidelines in a given field of activity in relation to the Office mandate. This structure would
also be responsible for monitoring the mandate of the Office and assist the Board in preparing
it.

3.3. 

Inter-institutional offices

The  presentation  of  the  new  type  of  office  made  in  the  previous  sections  refers  to  the
Commission type.

The Commission office would be set up, as said previously, either as an end in itself or as a
structure of transition towards a permanent inter-institutional one. The reason for adopting a
two-step  approach  can  be  found  in  the  different  levels  of  interest  and  need  of  the  other
Institutions  in  possibly  joining  an  Office.  Some  are  keener  than  others,  and  the  level  of
delegation of competencies and tasks that they are willing to delegate is uneven. Finally, there
is little scope for trying to have a common agreement of all the other Institutions, on the same
ground, before deciding to possibly create an Office.

The  inter-institutional  office  would  in  this  respect  represent  a  natural  development  of  the
Commission office. In its final configuration, the inter-institutional office would be very close
to the OPOCE and the ERO models and the proposals made under sections 3.1. and 3.2 would
need adaptations to transform the proposed structures into inter-institutional ones.

3.4. 

Areas where management by Offices can be considered

Delegation of tasks to offices has a certain potential for development and extension in areas
providing administrative support to Commission departments with the possibility of extension
to other Institutions.

Specific  fields  of  activities  for  offices  are  presented  in  the  Communication  on  the  “New
structures for managing administrative tasks currently undertaken in DG Admin”10.

This  communication  proposes  in  particular  the  creation  of  offices  in  charge  of  the
determination  of  individual  entitlements,  their  calculation  and  their  actual  payment
(paymaster  office)  and  in  charge  of  all  activities  connected  with  building  policy  and
management of office space (office for infrastructure and logistics).

10 SEC (2002) 618.

10

                                                
CONCLUSIONS

This  Communication  presents  the  results  of  the  analysis  undertaken  by  the  PCG
Externalisation  on  the  issue  of  the  Offices,  which  highlights  the  main  advantages  that  the
creation  of  Commission  Offices  could  bring,  and  the  potential  elements  of  risk  associated
with  it,  after  taking  stock  of  the  situation  existing  in  the  Commission  and  at  the  inter-
institutional level.

It is therefore proposed to create a new type of Office, perfectly in line with and taking full
advantage  of  the  Commission  decisions  in  the  area  of  external  personnel  and  of  the
opportunities that the recast Financial Regulation offers.

First instances of this new type of office are currently being designed in full consistency with
the principles presented in this Communication.

11