Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - European agencies – The way forward {SEC(2008) 323}
Date: 2008-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, EU office or agency, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions, powers of the institutions (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.3.2008 
COM(2008) 135 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

European agencies – The way forward 

{SEC(2008) 323} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

European agencies – The way forward 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

In recent years, using agencies to implement key tasks has become an established part of the 
way  the  European  Union  does  its  business.  They  have  become  part  of  the  institutional 
landscape of the Union. Most Member States have taken the same path of using agencies to 
bring a different approach to precisely-defined tasks. 

There  are  various  reasons  for  the  growing  use  of  agencies.  They  help  the  Commission  to 
focus  on  core  tasks,  making  it  possible  to  devolve  certain  operational  functions  to  outside 
bodies.  They  support  the  decision-making  process  by  pooling  the  technical  or  specialist 
expertise  available  at  European  and  national  level.  And  the  spread  of  agencies  beyond 
Brussels and Luxembourg adds to the visibility of the Union. 

With the growth in the number of agencies, they perform a range of important tasks across a 
spread of policy areas. Significant resources are now devoted to agencies. As a result, it has 
become increasingly important to have clarity about their role, and about the mechanisms to 
ensure the accountability of these public bodies. 

The  importance  of  agencies  in  the  EU's  administrative  framework  calls  for  a  common 
understanding  between  the  EU  institutions  of  the  purpose  and  role  of  agencies.  At  the 
moment, this common understanding is lacking. The establishment of agencies case by case – 
on a proposal from the Commission, but with the decision taken by the European Parliament 
and/or the Council of Ministers – has not been accompanied by an overall vision of the place 
of  agencies  in  the  Union.  The  lack  of  such  a  global  vision  has  made  it  more  difficult  for 
agencies to work effectively and to deliver for the EU as a whole.  

The  Commission  considers  that  the  time  has  come  to  re-launch  a  debate  on  the  role  of 
agencies and their place in the governance of the EU. A consistent political handling of the 
approach to agencies would promote the transparency and effectiveness of an important part 
of the EU's institutional machinery. 

***** 

There are two broad types of agency, each with different characteristics and raising different 
issues. "Regulatory" or "traditional" agencies have a variety of specific roles, set out in their 
own  legal  basis,  case-by-case1.  Executive  agencies  are  set  up  under  a  Council  regulation 

1 

There are now 29 agencies of this type, with proposals having been made for a further 2 agencies – see 
Annex. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
adopted in 2002 with the much more narrowly defined task of helping to manage Community 
programmes2. 

These  two  types  of  agencies  are  very  different.  They  have  a  different  role,  in  terms  of  the 
tasks  they  are  given,  their  independence  and  their  governance.  The  fact  that  regulatory 
agencies  are  spread  around  the  EU,  whilst  executive  agencies  are  housed  in  Brussels  or 
Luxembourg,  is  just  the  most  obvious  symbol  of  their  very  different  relationship  with  the 
Commission.  Not  surprisingly,  therefore,  the  two  types  of  agencies  give  rise  to  different 
issues and need to be tackled differently. 

This  communication  will  concentrate  on  regulatory  agencies  since  this  is  where  there  is  a 
need for clarification and a common approach. 

Executive  agencies  have  a  much  clearer  place  in  the  Union's  institutional  framework, 
governed  by  a  single  legal  base3.  Working  arrangements  to  govern  executive  agencies  have 
recently been agreed with the European Parliament Committee on Budgets4. Their tasks must 
relate to the management of Community programmes, they are set up for a limited period, and 
they  are  always  located  close  to  Commission  headquarters.  The  responsibility  of  the 
Commission  for  executive  agencies  is  clear:  the  Commission  creates  them,  maintains  "real 
control"  over  their  activity,  and  appoints  the  key  staff.  Their  annual  activity  reports  are 
annexed  to  the  report  from  their  parent  Directorate-General.  A  standard  financial  regulation 
adopted by the Commission, governing the establishment and implementation of the budget, 
applies to all executive agencies.  

It  is  too  early  to  make  a  general  assessment  of  the  success  of  the  executive  agencies.  They 
were  created  only  recently  and  have  yet  to  be  submitted  to  a  full  evaluation  of  their 
performance5.  At  the  same  time,  the  recent  screening  of  resources  by  the  Commission 
suggested  that  there  are  no  strong  candidates  for  a  new  executive  agency6.  If  new  needs 
appear,  the  starting  point  of  the  Commission  will  be  to  explore  the  option  of  extending  the 
scope  of  an  existing  executive  agency  to  cover  a  new  programme.  Under  the  current 
circumstances, it is unlikely that new executive agencies will be needed during the period of 
the current financial framework to 2013. 

In  addition  to  agencies,  the  responsibility  of  the  EU  to  stimulate  research  and  economic 
development  has  led  it  to  set  up  special  partnership  bodies.  It  has  been  recognised  that  to 
achieve  some  goals,  the  public  sector  needs  to  work  in  partnership  with  the  private  sector, 
providing funding and maintaining a voice but standing aside from key strategic decisions on 
direction.  The  result  is  innovative  bodies  such  as  joint  undertakings  like  ITER  for  nuclear 
fusion and SESAR for air traffic management, the Joint Technology Initiatives under the 7th 
Framework Programme, and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

See Annex. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  58/2003  of  19  December  2002  laying  down  the  statute  for  executive 
agencies  to  be  entrusted  with  certain  tasks  in  the  management  of  Community  programmes  (OJ  L  11, 
16.1.2003). 
Letter dated 16.10.2007 of D. Grybauskaitė, member of the Commission, to R. Böge, Chairman of the 
Budgets Committee, DGE/ef (2007)585. 
However,  a  positive  evaluation  of  the  work  of  the  Executive  Agency  for  the  management  of  the 
Intelligent Energy was conducted in 2006. 
SEC(2007) 530 "Planning & optimising Commission human resources to serve EU priorities". 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Arrangements for the financial and administrative governance of these bodies are governed by 
special rules under the Financial Regulation, and they are directly responsible to the discharge 
authority for budget implementation. Their raison d'être is explicitly to work differently to a 
normal "public sector" body: though supported by public funds, they should make decisions 
from the perspective of commercial edge or expertise. These are therefore not agencies, and 
are not covered by this communication. 

2. 

REGULATORY AGENCIES TODAY  

Regulatory  agencies  each  have  their  own  basic  sectoral  regulation,  often  adopted  by  co-
decision7.  They  are  sometimes  called  "traditional  agencies",  because  of  their  long  standing, 
and  sometimes  "decentralised  agencies",  because  they  are  spread  around  Europe.  They  are 
independent bodies, with their own legal personality. Most are funded by the EU budget8 – as 
well  as,  in  some  cases,  by  the  direct  receipt  of  fees  or  payments.  The  general  Financial 
Regulation  contains  certain  essential  rules  concerning  in  particular  agencies'  establishment 
plan, the application of the framework financial regulation for agencies, the consolidation of 
their accounts with those of the Commission, and the discharge by the European Parliament. 
In  addition,  the  framework  financial  regulation  lays  down  common  rules  governing  the 
establishment and implementation of their budget, including control aspects. The 20 agencies 
funded  from  the  EU  budget  receive  budgetary  discharge  directly  from  the  Parliament.  With 
respect  to  human  resources,  the  Staff  Regulations  define  the  principles  permitting  the 
establishment of a staff policy for agencies. In requiring agencies to adopt general provisions 
for  implementing  the  Staff  Regulations  in  agreement  with  the  Commission,  that  Regulation 
aims  at  ensuring  a  consistent  staff  policy  and  avoiding  unnecessary  differences  in  approach 
among  the  agencies  on  recruitment  processes  and  career  prospects.  However,  there  are  no 
general rules governing the creation and operation of regulatory agencies. 

The  first  regulatory  agencies,  CEDEFOP  (Vocational 
training)  and  EUROFOUND 
(Improvement of living and working conditions), were set up in 1975. During the 1990s, the 
deepening of the internal market led to a series of new agencies with roles more focused on 
tasks  of  a  technical  and/or  scientific  nature,  such  as  authorisation  of  plant  varieties  and 
medicines.  Extra  tasks  led  to  further  agencies,  offering  opportunities  for  different  Member 
States to host different agencies. 

There  are  currently  29  regulatory  agencies,  with  proposals  on  the  table  for  two  others  (see 
annex). Three of these are agencies under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and three 
are  agencies  dealing  with  issues  under  Title  VI  of  the  EU  Treaty  on  Police  and  Judicial 
Cooperation  in  Criminal  Matters.  The  regulatory  agencies  employ  some  3800  staff,  with  an 
annual  budget  of  around  €  1 100  million,  including  a  Community  contribution  of  around 
€ 559  million9.  The  agencies  vary  widely  in  size,  from  under  50  people  monitoring  plant 
varieties to over 600 in the agency monitoring trademarks. 

7 

8 

9 

Out of the 23 agencies under the EC Treaty, 12 of them have their legal basis under article 308EC, the 
other ones being created under a sectoral Treaty basis, 8 agencies' basic acts being adopted under co-
decision. See complete list of regulatory agencies in Annex. 
The  agencies  created  under  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  are  funded  directly  by  Member 
States. 
Figures  only  for Agencies  created  under  the  EC  Treaty  and under  Police  and  Judicial  Cooperation  in 
Criminal  Matters  excluding  EUROPOL,  which  is  funded  by  member  States  under  its  present  legal 
status. The Agencies created under Common Foreign and Security Policy are under full control of the 
Council (full financing of these agencies by Member States). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The roles of the regulatory agencies are very varied. Some can adopt individual decisions with 
direct  effect,  applying  agreed  EU  standards;  some  provide  additional  technical  expertise  on 
which the Commission can then base a decision and some focus more on networking between 
national authorities. 

Agencies  have  proved  particularly  relevant  in  field  of  shared  competences,  when  the 
implementation  of  new  policies  at  Community  level  needs  to  be  accompanied  by  close 
cooperation between the Member States and the EU. The establishment of agencies can make 
possible a pooling of powers at EU level which would be resisted if centred on the institutions 
themselves.  

Finally,  these  agencies  have  played  a  role  in  helping  certain  third  countries  become  more 
familiar with the EC acquis and best practices. Candidate countries have been participating in 
Community agencies since 200010, and this possibility has since been extended to the Western 
Balkan countries and the partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy. 

There are clear and strict limits to the autonomous power of regulatory agencies in the current 
Community  legal  order.  Agencies  cannot  be  given  the  power  to  adopt  general  regulatory 
measures.  They  are  limited  to  taking  individual  decisions  in  specific  areas  where  a  defined 
technical  expertise  is  required,  under  clearly  and  precisely  defined  conditions  and  without 
genuine discretionary power. In addition, the agencies cannot be entrusted with powers which 
may affect the responsibilities which the Treaty has explicitly conferred on the Commission 
(for example, acting as the guardian of Community law).  

For agencies playing a role in preparing or taking decisions, one of the goals has been to give 
those  decisions  extra  credibility  and  authority:  with  agencies  helping  to  demonstrate  that 
decisions  are  based  on  technical/scientific  grounds.  This  requires  the  agencies  to  take 
decisions  on  the  basis  of  reliable  information  and  expertise,  making  transparency  and 
scientific  competence  essential  requirements.  It  also  creates  a  challenge,  with  the  need  to 
balance this technical dimension of agencies with the need for all public bodies to be properly 
accountable. 

Regulatory agencies are usually governed by a Management Board responsible for ensuring 
that the agency performs the tasks set out in its basic act, with a Director appointed to ensure 
the  operational  working  of  the  agency.  The  Management  Board  normally  nominates  the 
Director and has authority over the agency's work programme, budget and annual report.  

There are different rules on the size and composition of the Management Board, but though 
the Commission is normally represented, it is always in a minority, sometimes even without 
the  right  to  vote.  This  raises  issues  about  the  extent  to  which  the  Commission  can  be  held 
accountable for decisions taken by agencies. The issue of accountability is complicated by the 
Commission's involvement in other aspects of agencies' work – which can include producing 
a shortlist of names for the Director of an agency, being consulted on work programmes, and 
conducting evaluations. In addition, the Commission's internal auditor performs the same role 
in respect of agencies as for Commission departments11. 

The  need  for  clear  lines  of  accountability  to  govern  agencies'  actions  is  at  the  core  of  the 
debate  about  agencies.  Questions  have  also  been  raised  about  particular  aspects  of  the 

10 
11 

Communication of 20 December 1999 - COM(1999) 710 final. 
Article 185(3) of Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
relations  between  other  institutions  and  agencies,  including  the  role  of  the  European 
Parliament in the appointment of Directors and the roles and responsibilities of Management 
Board members nominated to represent particular interests. 

Regulatory agencies have made a significant and useful contribution to the effective operation 
of the EU. In many cases they have built up a highly-respected scientific or technical know-
how and have thereby helped the institutions to take effective decisions. In others, they have 
shown  their  capacity  to  analyse  and  stimulate  public  debate  at  both  European  and 
international level. As a consequence, the Commission has been in a position to concentrate 
on core tasks. 

3. 

A COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR REGULATORY AGENCIES  

As the number and diversity of regulatory agencies has grown, the Commission decided that a 
common  framework  would  help  to  clarify  and  standardise  their  functions  and  working 
methods. In 2005, it proposed an interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for 
the European regulatory agencies12. The goal was to agree conditions relating to the creation, 
operation  and  control  of  regulatory  agencies  under  the  first  pillar.  Though  targeted  on  new 
agencies,  these  ground  rules  could  also  be  used  to  review,  formally  or  informally,  how 
existing  agencies  were  working.  Despite  general  support  from  the  European  Parliament, 
negotiations on this draft agreement unfortunately stalled during 2006, with the Council not 
ready to give attention to the issue and with doubts raised over the use of an inter-institutional 
agreement as a vehicle. 

However,  the  issues  which  the  inter-institutional  agreement  sought  to  address  remain.  The 
varied role, structure and profile of  regulatory agencies  make the  system  untransparent,  and 
raise  doubts  about  their  accountability  and  legitimacy.  The  diverse  role  of  agencies  fuels 
concerns  that  they  might  stray  into  areas  more  properly  the  domain  of  the  policy-making 
branches of the EU. The responsibilities of the other institutions toward agencies, and of the 
Commission  in  particular,  suffer  from  the  lack  of  a  clear  framework  and  defined  lines  of 
responsibility. 

3.1. 

Issues to include in a common approach 

Whatever form it takes, the Commission considers that there should be a common approach to 
the  governance  of  regulatory  agencies.  There  will  always  be  variations  between  agencies: 
their different functions, ways of working and sizes have not developed by chance, but reflect 
an  attempt  to  define  the  best  way  to  allow  each  agency  to  discharge  its  responsibilities 
effectively.  A  balance  must  be  struck  between  the  need  for  an  approach  sufficiently 
standardized that agencies have a coherent  place in  European governance – and the need to 
respect  agencies’  specific  characteristics.  As  public  bodies  of  the  EU,  all  agencies  must  be 
organised  in  the  right  way  to  respect  basic  principles  of  accountability  and  sound  financial 
management.  While  the  Financial  and  Staff  regulations  remain  applicable  to  agencies,  their 
small size compared to EU institutions would seem to justify appropriate adaptations. 

12 

COM(2005) 59 final du 25.2.2005. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The building blocks for a common approach to agencies should cover the following areas: 

•  The tasks of regulatory agencies   

The varied roles of agencies today show that there will never be a single model for what an 
agency should do. But agencies fall into different categories. A clear explanation of these 
different types of function would improve clarity and understanding about their role.  

Different types of regulatory agencies 

Agencies  can  be  classified  in  different  ways.  One  useful  way  is  to  try  to  look  at  the  key 
functions  they  perform.  Although  agencies  often  perform  a  number  of  different  roles,  an 
analysis of the centre of gravity of agencies’ activities suggests the following categories13: 

•  Agencies adopting individual decisions which are legally binding on third parties: CVPO, 

OHIM, EASA14 and ECHA15 

•  Agencies  providing  direct  assistance  to  the  Commission  and,  where  necessary,  to  the 
Member  States,  in  the  form  of  technical  or  scientific  advice  and/or  inspection  reports: 
EMSA16, EFSA, ERA and EMEA 

•  Agencies in charge of operational activities: EAR, GSA, CFCA, FRONTEX, EUROJUST, 

EUROPOL and CEPOL 

•  Agencies responsible for gathering, analysing and forwarding objective, reliable and easy-
/  networking:  CEDEFOP,  EUROFOUND,  EEA,  ETF, 

to-understand 
EMCCDA, EU-OSHA, ENISA, ECDC, FRA and European Institute for Gender Equality 

information 

•  Services to other agencies and institutions: CDT 

•  The structure and working of agencies 

A more standard approach to the governance of agencies would allow for certain standard 
rules  to  apply  to  the  Management  Board,  the  Director  and  to  the  programming  and 
reporting of the agency's work. It would also help to clarify their relationship with the EU 
institutions and with the Member States. 

•  Accountability and regulatory agencies' relationship with the other institutions 

The  mechanisms  in  place  to  ensure  accountability  for  the  actions  of  regulatory  agencies 
should be clear to both the agencies and the Institutions. This should include reporting and 
auditing  requirements,  relations  with  stakeholders,  and  responses  to  parliamentary 
questions.  The  management  of  the  agencies  must  also  respect  basic  standards  of  good 
stewardship to mitigate possible risks. There should also be coherent rules for evaluation of 
the agencies. 

13 
14 

15 

16 

Agencies created under Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) are not included. 
EASA also provides direct assistance to the Commission and, where necessary, to the Member States, 
in the form of technical or scientific advice and/or inspection reports. 
ECHA also provides assistance to the Commission and, where necessary, to the Member States, in the 
form of technical and scientific advice and/or opinions. 
EMSA  has  also  in  its  mandate  important  operational  activities  (in  particular  maritime  anti-pollution 
activities). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In particular, the degree of accountability of the Commission cannot exceed the degree of 
influence of the Commission on the agency's activities. At the same time, the Commission 
will look at its own internal organization to ensure that the link with agencies and the role 
of  its  own  services  are  on  the  right  footing.  There  are  also  questions  concerning  the 
relationship between agencies and the European Parliament and the Council, beyond their 
role in agreeing the legal basis for an agency in the first place, and the budgetary process, 
such  as  the  involvement  of  the  European  Parliament  in  nominations  to  the  Board  and 
Director. 

•  Better regulation and the work of agencies 

As  part  of  the  governance  structures  of  the  Union,  it  is  important  that  agencies  apply 
modern principles of better regulation. This includes concentrating on their core business; 
factoring  in  the  need  to  consult  properly  with  and  provide  feedback  to  stakeholders;  and 
organizing their business in such a way that transparency is assured and that performance 
can be effectively monitored by institutions and stakeholders alike. 

•  The process for establishing and ending regulatory agencies 

The process for setting up agencies could usefully be set out – to include the need for an 
impact assessment to be undertaken before a Commission proposal is presented, as well as 
clarification  of  the  role  of  the  host  country,  including  the  need  for  the  host  country  to 
ensure appropriate schooling facilities for children of staff17. Criteria could also be set out 
to assess when an agency has served its purpose and can be disbanded. 

•  Communication strategy 

Ground  rules  for  the  communication  strategy  to  be  followed  by  agencies  would  help  to 
improve  public  understanding  of  their  role,  and  ensure  that  agencies'  communication 
policies are consistent with the Union's overall approach. 

3.2.  Making progress towards a common framework 

The  proposed  inter-institutional  agreement  has  not  been  able  to  make  progress.  The 
Commission  therefore  intends  to  withdraw  its  proposal  for  an  inter-institutional  agreement, 
and  to  replace  it  by  an  invitation  to  an  inter-institutional  discussion  which  should  lead  to  a 
common approach. 

•  With  this  goal  in  mind,  the  next  step  should  be  a  forum  where  the  three  institutions  can 
make  a  collective  political  assessment  of  experience  of  agencies  and  their  place  in  the 
Union. This would be an opportunity to develop a common understanding of what should 
be  the  shape  of  regulatory  agencies  and  to  define  clearly  the  responsibilities  of  each 
institution  vis-à-vis  the  agencies.  The  Commission  therefore  proposes  that  an  inter-
institutional working group should be established with this objective. A first building block 
for this dialogue would be the available studies and reports on agencies such as the reports 
which the Commission has already provided the European Parliament in the framework of 
the 2008 budgetary process18, and the reports of the European Court of Auditors. 

17 

18 

This  requirement  is  already  enshrined  in  Article  47  of  the  interinstitutional  agreement  on  budgetary 
discipline and Articles 27 to 30 of the Better Regulation interinstitutional agreement. 
There  are  two  relevant  reports:  (i)  a  summary  of  evaluations  carried  out  on  agencies  and  (ii)  state  of 
play and planning concerning evaluation of agencies. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  If  the  starting  point  is  a  genuine  inter-institutional  dialogue  on  a  vision  for  regulatory 
agencies,  the  natural  development  would  be  to  follow  this  up  with  an  instrument  to  give 
form and transparency to the conclusions of this dialogue. The Commission remains open 
to alternatives to the route of an inter-institutional agreement, whether legally binding or 
not. The overriding objective should be a political understanding – given the varied nature 
of regulatory agencies, it would not be appropriate to seek to mirror the legal framework 
agreed for executive agencies. In the meantime, the Commission will continue to use the 
philosophy  and  core  principles  of  the  proposed  interinstitutional  agreement  as  a  point  of 
reference for its own approach to agencies. 

•  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  intends  to  launch  a  thorough  evaluation  of  the 
regulatory agencies. This evaluation will contribute to the ongoing debate on the future of 
the  Community  agency  system  by  taking  a  horizontal  look  at  all  agencies19.  The  new 
evaluation will allow all the European institutions to examine the real implications of the 
creation and operation of agencies in the Union. The Commission intends to report on the 
results of this evaluation by 2009-2010. 

•  To allow this evaluation to proceed in stable conditions, the Commission has decided not 
to  make  proposals  for  new  regulatory  agencies  until  the  conclusion  of  the  evaluation. 
Agencies which are already under inter-institutional discussion would go ahead as planned, 
including  existing  proposals  in  the  fields  of  energy  and  telecoms,  as  well  as  planned 
agencies  in  the  field  of  justice  and  home  affairs20  and  changes  in  the  scope  of  existing 
agencies  would  also  continue.  This  commitment  should  allow  all  the  institutions  to  fully 
assess, in view of the results of the evaluation, the implications and consequences for the 
Union  of  the  creation  and  functioning  of  regulatory  agencies.  The  result  should  be  a 
coherent approach to agencies in the future. 

•  An agreed approach should apply to all agencies, taking into account their specificities and 
may  entail  amendments  to  the  basic  acts  governing  existing  regulatory  agencies  to  make 
them consistent with a new approach. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission believes that agencies can bring real added value to the Union's governance 
structures.  At  present,  however,  this  potential  is  being  held  back  by  the  lack  of  a  common 
vision about the role and functions of regulatory agencies. 

The  Commission  therefore  invites  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  Ministers  to 
join it in a dialogue on the place of agencies in European governance. An inter-institutional 
working  group  would  allow  the  key  issues  facing  agencies  to  be  set  out  as  ground  rules  to 
apply to all. At the same time, the Commission intends to: 

19 

20 

More limited horizontal studies on the agency system have been already carried out by the Commission, 
e.g.  the  meta-study  on  decentralised  agencies  of  2003  and  the  one  currently  ongoing,  both  based  on 
existing evaluation reports on decentralised agencies.  
This  concerns  a  possible  proposal  for  an  agency  for  the  operational  management  of  SIS  II,  VIS  and 
EURODAC  and  for  the  development  and  the  management  of  other  large-scale  IT  systems;  and  a 
possible proposal for a European Support office for Asylum. Impact assessments and feasibility studies 
are currently under way.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Withdraw its proposal for an inter-institutional agreement; 

•  Undertake a horizontal evaluation of regulatory agencies, by the end of 2009, and to report 

as soon as possible to the European Parliament and the Council on the results; 

•  Propose no new regulatory agencies until the work of the evaluation is complete (end of 

2009); 

•  Undertake a review of the Commission's own internal systems governing its relations with 

agencies, as well as the methodology for conducting impact assessment of agencies. 

The  effective  delivery  of  services  by  agencies  can  make  a  real  contribution  to  the 
implementation  of  EU  policy.  The  Commission  believes  that  the  three  institutions  should 
agree to work together to develop a clear and coherent vision for the future place of agencies 
in the Union's governance. 

EN 

10 

   EN