Special Report No 13/2009 #Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?
Date: 2009-07-15
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, EU office or agency, decision-making, implementation of the budget, management audit

EXECUTIVE AGENCIES ARE COMMUNITY BODIES ESTABLISHED 

BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT, BY 

DELEGATION, ALL OR PART OF EU SPENDING PROGRAMMES. 

THEY ARE A RELATIVELY NEW PHENOMENON IN THE EUROPEAN 

INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE. THE AUDIT ASSESSED WHETHER 

THE SIX EXECUTIVE AGENCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN CREATED 

SINCE 2003 HAD PROVEN TO BE A SUCCESSFUL INSTRUMENT 

FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EUROPEAN BUDGET. 

THE REPORT ANALYSES THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR 

CREATING THE AGENCIES AND THE BENEFITS ACHIEVED IN 

TERMS OF COST SAVINGS, SERVICE DELIVERY AND EFFICIENCY 

GAINS. THE COMMISSION’S SUPERVISION OF THE AGENCIES’ 

ACTIVITIES IS ALSO EXAMINED.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

Q
J
-
A
B
-
0
9
-
0
1
3
-
E
N

-
C

EUROPEAN 
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

9
0
0
2

3
1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

DELEGATING IMPLEMENTING 

TASKS TO  EXECUTIVE AGENCIES:

A SUCCESSFUL OPTION?

EN

 
 
 
 
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

•	

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

from	your	bookseller	by	quoting	the	title,	publisher	and/or	ISBN	number;

	by	contacting	one	of	our	sales	agents	directly.	You	can	obtain	their	contact		details	on	the	Internet	
(http://bookshop.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax		to	+352	2929-42758.

Free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	at	the	European	Commission’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	
on	the	Internet	(http://ec.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax	to	+352	2929-42758.

special Report no 13 

 2009

Delegating  
implementing  
tasks to executive 
agencies:   
a successful option?

(pursuant to article 248(4), second subparagraph, of the ec  treaty)

euR opean couR t of auDitoRs

euR opean couR t of auDitoRs 
12, rue alcide De g asperi
1615 luxembourg
luxemBouR g

tel.: +352 4398-1
fax: +352 4398-46410
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

special Report no 13 

 2009

a great deal of additional information on the european union is available on the internet.

it can be accessed through the europa server (http://europa.eu).

cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

luxembourg: publications office of the european union, 2009

isBn 978-92-9207-477-7

doi:10.2865/85634

© european communities, 2009

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

taBle  of contents

3

Paragraph

AbbreviAtions And GlossAr y

i–vi  

executive summAr y

1–14 

introduction

15–17 

Audit objective And  APPro Ach

18–60 

Audit observAtions

18–30 
18–21 

22–30 

31–51 
31–39 
40–46 
47–51 

52–60 
52–60 

the creAtion Process
 initiative to set up the executive agencies mainly  DRiven  By constR aints on employment 
 within the commission
limiteD  contRiBution fR om cost–Benefit analyses to the  Decision-making pR ocess

the benefits Achieved
savings fR om loweR  staff costs But oveR all quantification Difficult
Bet teR  seR vice DeliveR y
limiteD  efficiency gains foR  RecRuitment

the commission’s suPervision of the AGencies
a focus on BuDgetaR y execution

61–66 

conclusions And recommend Ations

Annex i  —  detAiled overview of ProGrAmmes And budGets mAnAGed by executive AGencies
Annex ii  —  differences between executive And reGulAtory AGencies
Annex iii —   meAsures tAken in resPect of simPlificAtion, communicAtion, visibility And 

 disseminAtion of results

rePly  of the commission 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
 
aBBReviations  anD 
glossaR y

4

AAr: annual activity report

AwP: annual work programme

cbA: cost–benefit analysis

cobu: c ommittee on Budgets of the european parliament

creA: Regulatory c ommittee for executive a gencies

dG: Directorate- general (of the european commission)

dG  budGet: Directorate- general for the Budget

dG  ecfin: Directorate- general for economic and financial affairs

dG  entr: Directorate- general for enterprise and i ndustry

dG  env: Directorate- general for the environment

dG  infso: Directorate- general for the information society and media 

dG  sAnco: Directorate- general for health and consumers 

eAceA: e ducation, audiovisual and culture executive a gency

eAci: executive a gency for competitiveness and i nnovation (formerly ieea)

eAhc: executive a gency for health and c onsumers (formerly phea)

erc: european Research council

erceA:  e uropean Research council executive a gency

framework  regulation:  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, p. 1)

ieeA:  intelligent  energy  executive  agency  (became  eaci  in  2008  after  extension  of  its 
 mandate)

mff:  multiannual  financial  framework  —  contains  the  financial  perspectives  of  the  eu 
budget  divided into expenditure ‘headings’. the mff for the current period (2007–13) con-
tains the following headings: 1. sustainable growth and employment, 2.  preservation  and 
 management of natural resources, 3. citizenship, freedom, security and justice, 4. the eu as 
a global partner, 5. administration, 6. compensations

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

5

Parent dG: the commission department responsible for the community programmes the 
management of which is delegated to the agencies 

PheA:  public  health  executive  agency  (became  eahc  in  2008  with  the  extension  of  its 
mandate to new programmes)

reA: Research executive a gency

tAo: technical assistance o ffice 

ten-t eA:  trans-european transport network executive a gency

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

6

executive 
summaR y

v.
th e c our t found th at:

( i) 

t h e   i n i t i a t i v e   o f   s e t t i n g   u p   t h e   e x -
e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   w a s   m a i n l y   d r i v e n 
by   co n s t r a i n t s   o n   e m p l oy m e n t   w i t h-
in   t he  commiss ion  rathe r  th an  being 
based on the intr insic features of the 
programm es th em selves ;

( ii)   t h e   c o s t – b e n e f i t   a n a l y s e s   ( cBa s )   re -
q u i re d   b y   t h e   l e g i s l a t i o n   i n   o rd e r   t o 
s u p p o r t   t h e   d e c i s i o n   t o   c r e a t e   t h e 
a g e n c i e s   t o o k   l i t t l e   a c c o u n t   o f   n o n -
f i n a n c i a l   a s p e c t s   a n d   o m i t t e d   s o m e 
impor tant factors on the side of costs. 
the picture provided, though undeni-
a b l y   p o s i t i v e   f r o m   a   f i n a n c i a l   p o i n t 
o f   v i e w,   w a s   n o t   e n t i r e l y   a c c u r a t e . 
t h e   c o n t r i b u t i o n   o f   t h e   cBa s   t o   t h e 
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p r o c e s s   w a s   r a t h e r 
limited; 

( iii)  i n   t e r m s   o f   b e n e f i t s   a c h i e v e d ,   t h e r e 
are  clear  cost  savings  stemming  from 
the prevalence of lower paid contrac t 
staff, even when one considers the ad-
ditional costs of the new posts created 
f o r   s u p e r v i s i o n   a n d   s u p p o r t   a t   b o t h 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e   a g e n c i e s . 
ho w e v e r,   t h e   a c t u a l   a m o u n t   o f   t h e 
savings depends on the redeployment 
of the commission staff who were pre -
viously  doing  the  wor k  taken  over  by 
the  agencies,  and  on  the  suppression 
o f   t h e   co nt ra c t   s t a f f   p o s t s   w i t h i n   t h e 
c o r r e s p o n d i n g   p r o g r a m m e   a r e a s   a t 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n .  t h e   l a c k   o f   r e l i a b l e 
i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   e x   a n t e  s i t u a t i o n 
at the commission does not allow the 
ex tent of the savings to be ver ified;

i.
exe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   a r e   c o m m u n i t y   b o d-
i e s   w i t h   l e g a l   p e r s o n a l i t y   e s t a b l i s h e d   by 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i n   o r d e r   t o   i m p l e m e n t 
b y   d e l e g a t i o n   a l l   o r   p a r t   o f   e u   s p e n d i n g 
p r o g r a m m e s .   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   r e m a i n s 
r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   t h e   p o l i c y   t a s k s   a n d   t h e 
super vis io n of  t he ac tivities del e g ated.

ii.
executive agencies are a relatively recent 
phenomenon in the eu institutional land-
scape. since 2 003, s ix execu tive  agen cie s 
have been created, responsible for manag -
ing a f in anc ial  envel op e of around  3 2  bil-
l i o n   e u r o   f o r   t h e   p e r i o d   u n t i l   2 0 1 3 .   t h e 
number o f p ers onnel author ised  for  2 0 0 9 
is 1 3 39. they  are mainl y contrac t staf f.

iii.
t h e   c o u r t ’s   a u d i t   a i m e d   a t   a s s e s s i n g 
w h e t h e r   t h e   d e l e g a t i o n   o f   m a n a g e m e n t 
tasks to the executive agencies had proved 
to   b e   a   s u cce s s f u l   o p t i o n   fo r   i m p l e m e nt -
ing th e e u rop ea n b u dget.

iv.
to this pur pose, it examined in par ticular : 

(i)  whether  the  decision  to  create  an  ex-
e c u t i v e   a g e n c y   w a s   s u p p o r t e d   b y   a n 
a d e q u a t e   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   n e e d s   a n d 
the potential gains;

(ii)  w h a t   b e n e f i t s   h ave   b e e n   a c h i e ve d   i n 
t e r m s   o f   f i n a n c i a l   s a v i n g s ,   i m p r o v e d 
ser vice and other efficienc y gains;

(iii)  w h e t h e r   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   e f f e c -
tively  car r ied  out  its  super visor y  role 
over the agencies’ ac tivities.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

77

executive  
summaR y

vi.
t h e   c o u r t ’s   m a i n   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   a r e 
th at  the  c ommiss ion  should:

(i) 

reconsider its procedures for identify-
i n g   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   f o r   e x t e r n a l i s a t i o n 
and for considering the establishment 
or the ex tension of agencies;

( ii)   improve the quality of the cost–bene -
f i t   a n a l y s e s   t o   a l l o w   t h e m   t o   c o n-
t r i b u t e   f u l l y   a n d   e f f e c t i v e l y   t o   t h e 
 decision-mak ing process;

(iii)  e n s u r e   t h a t   i t   h a s   r e l e v a n t ,   r e l i a b l e 
d a t a   o n   w o r k l o a d   a n d   p r o d u c t i v i t y 
re l ate d   to   t h e   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   o f   t h e 
delegated tasks, both before and after 
ex ter nalisation;

( iv)  i d e n t i f y   t h e   s u c c e s s   f a c t o r s   w h i c h 
have led to better results at the execu-
t i v e   a g e n c i e s   a n d   a p p l y   s i m i l a r   f a c -
t o r s   t o   p r o g r a m m e s   w h i c h   c o n t i n u e 
to  be  manag ed in- hous e;

(v)  s u p e r v i s e   t h e   a g e n c i e s   by   s e t t i n g   re -
sults-oriented and targeted objectives, 
u s i n g   a   l i m i t e d   n u m b e r   o f   r e l e v a n t 
per formance indicators which form the 
basis for nex t years’ objec tives.

(iv)  a s   a   r e s u l t   o f   t h e i r   s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   i n 
i d e n t i f i a b l e   a n d   s p e c i f i c a l l y   d e f i n e d 
t a s k s ,   t h e   a g e n c i e s   p r o v i d e   b e t t e r 
s e r v i c e   d e l i v e r y   i n   t e r m s   o f   r e d u c e d 
t i m e   f o r   c o n t r a c t i n g ,   m o r e   r a p i d 
 approval procedures for technical and 
f i n a n c i a l   r e p o r t s   a n d   l o w e r   p a y m e n t 
d e l a y s .   o t h e r   q u a l i t a t i v e   i m p r o v e -
m e n t s   a r e   t h e   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n   o f   p r o -
c e s s e s   a s   w e l l   a s   i n c r e a s e d   e x t e r n a l 
co m m u n i c at i o n   a n d   d i s s e m i n at i o n   o f 
re s u l t s,   w h i c h   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   e n h a n c e 
t h e   v i s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   e u.   o n   t h e   o t h e r 
hand, the expected flexibility in hiring 
staff is not demonstrated;

(v)  t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   s u p e r v i s i o n   o f   t h e 
agencies’ work is quite limited: the an-
nual work programmes (subjec t to the 
c o m m i s s i o n’s   a p p r o v a l )   a r e   s c a r c e l y 
u s e d   fo r   s e t t i n g   t a r g e t e d   o b j e c t i ve s ; 
t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   i s   m a i n l y   f o c u s e d   o n 
indicators related to how the tasks are 
c a r r i e d   o u t   ra t h e r   t h a n   to   t h e   re s u l t s 
produced; the repor ts are usually con-
fined to budgetar y execution and omit 
to measure progress made on a multi-
a n n u a l   b a s i s   a n d   i d e n t i f y   c o r r e c t i v e 
ac tions for the future.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

intR oDuction  

8

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

 executive agencies are  communit y bodies with legal personalit y 
est ab lis hed by t he co mm ission in  order to implem ent al l or  par t 
of eu p ro gramm es  on  it s b ehalf a nd  und er   it s res pon si bil it y. 

 Delegating the day-to - day management of spending programmes 
t o   s p e c i a l i s e d   a g e n c i e s   h a s   b e e n   a   l e i t m o t i v   o f   p u b l i c   s e r v i c e 
refor m  at   nat io nal   l evel   over  th e  las t  t wo  de cade s 1. th is  h ad  es-
sent ial l y t wo  aim s : imp roving s er v ice  de live r y ( th rough  re duce d 
red  t ap e,  inc reased  s p ecial is atio n an d  en ha n ce d comm it me nt  to 
spec ific   re sult s)  and  en ab l ing  central   au th or i ti e s   to  con centrate 
on  ‘co re fu nc t io ns’ s uc h as  p olic y  d es ign  an d  super v is ion . 

 the setting-up of executive agencies in the eu context became an 
issue in 1999, when the commission under took a major review of 
its ex ternalisation polic y as par t of a pack age of overall adminis-
trative reform 2. this was in response to the parliament ’s concerns 
a b o u t   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   s p e n d i n g   p ro g r a m m e s   by   m o re   t h a n 
one hundred bodies, k nown as technical assistance offices ( taos), 
op erate d by pr ivate co ntrac tors 3. 

1  this has been part of the 

modernisation agenda for better 

governance in the uk, canada and 

new Zealand since the early 1990s. 

more recently, other european 

countries (sweden, france, germany 

and italy) have followed these 

examples.

2 

‘orientations for the 

commission's externalisation policy’, 

communication from mrs schreyer 

and mr kinnock, sec(1999) 2051/7, 

14 December 1999.

3  taos were criticised in particular 

for the vague definition of the tasks, 

the poor control exercised by the 

commission over their activities, 

the threat to budget transparency 

due to the use of operational 

appropriations to fund administrative 

costs borne by the taos, and 

non-compliance with the relevant 

accountability requirements. see 

european parliament, ‘coBu working 

 i n   2 0 0 0 ,   t h e   w h i t e   pa p e r   o n   r e f o r m 4  a f f i r m e d   t h e   n e e d   f o r   t h e 
commission to refocus on its core tasks by ex ter nalising some of 
th e ad minis trative wo r k w hen ex te r na li sat ion : 

Documents 10, 11 and 12 on the 

future of the taos: supervision or 

dismantling?’, 4 november 1999. 

(a) 

is a more efficient and cost- effec tive means of delivering the 
se r v ices o r g oo ds  concer ned;

4 

‘Reforming the commission’ — 

a white paper — part i, com(2000) 

200 final/2, 5 april 2000. 

(b)  do es  no t invo l ve t he exerc ise of  d isc ret io nar y  powe r s  ( i. e. it 

do es  no t imp l y p o l it ical  ch oices) ;

(c) 

i s   j u s t i f i e d   o n   i t s   ow n   m e r i t s   rat h e r   t h a n   b e i n g   a   m e re   s u b -
st it ute  fo r comp en satin g for c ommiss ion  staff  s hor tages. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
9

5. 

6. 

7. 

8 . 

9. 

 fur thermore, the white paper required that the decision to ex ter-
nalis e sho ul d be  t aken on a cons i stent  basi s  ac ro ss th e  europe an 
commission, so that similar instruments are used in similar cases 5. 
th e   ex te r n a l i s at i o n   o f   m a n a g e m e nt   t a s k s   wo u l d   i n c l u d e  ‘ te s t i n g 
a new  t y pe o f imp l ement ing  b ody  h ea de d by  commiss ion  st aff ’ 6; 
i.e. t he  execu tive agenc ies.

5 

‘Reforming the commission’, cit., 

p. 11. 

6 

‘Reforming the commission’, cit.,  

p. 11. 

7  six out of 126 taos existing in 2000 

were replaced by executive agencies 

(three by eacea, one by eahc, two by 

eaci). 

8  articles 54(2)(a) and 55 of 

council Regulation (ec, euratom) 

no 1605/2002 (oJ l 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1).

9  Regulation (ec) no 58/2003.

10  this is done through the Regulatory 

committee for executive agencies 

(cRea), provided for in article 24 of 

the framework Regulation, which is 

composed of the representatives of 

the member states and chaired by the 

representative of the commission.

 t h e   u s e   o f  taos   w a s   t h e r e fo r e   p h a s e d   o u t .   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f 
some programmes (mainly related to ex ternal aid) was taken over 
by the commission, through significant recourse to contrac t staff ; 
som e  p rogrammes  were  d is conti n ue d  an d   ot h er s   we re   e ntr us te d 
to exe cu tive  a gencies 7.

 the 2002 financial Regulation makes provision for creating execu -
tive  agencies 8. their  statute  is  defined  by  a  common  legal  frame -
work 9. they are established by the commission, af ter  endorsement 
b y   t h e   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   u n d e r   t h e   c o m i t o l o g y   r e g u l a t o r y   p r o -
ced ure 10.  the   euro p ean   par l ia me nt   is   a lso  ass oc iated  in  t h e   de c i-
sion : it  gives  it s  op inion  on  the  ne ed  for  a ny  propose d  ag en c y.

 si x   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   h a v e   b e e n   e s t a b l i s h e d   s i n c e   2 0 0 3   ( s e e 
Ta b l e   1) . 

 a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   c o u r t ’s   a u d i t ,   f o u r   o f   t h e   s i x   a g e n c i e s   w e r e 
 o p e r a t i o n a l   (e a c i,   e a h c,   e a c e a  a n d   t e n- t  e a,   t h e   l a t t e r   s i n c e 
apr il  200 8). 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
 
10

tAb l e   1

ex e c u t i v e   AGe n c i e s   e s t Ab l i s h e d   s i n c e   200 3

Total budget 
managed 
under 
the MFF 
2007–13
(billion euro)

1,7

0,5

3,7

8,0

Initial and final 
term

1.1.2004–31.12.2008  
(extended until 
31.12.2015)

1.1.2005–31.12.2010  
(extended until 
31.12.2015)

1.1.2005–31.12.2008  
(extended until 
31.12.2013)

26.10.2006–31.12.2008 
(extended until 
31.12.2015)

Executive agencies

Executive Agency 
for Competitiveness 
and Innovation 
(EACI), former IEEA

Executive Agency 
for Health and 
Consumers (EAHC), 
former PHEA

Education,  
Audiovisual and 
Culture Executive 
Agency (EACEA)

Trans-European 
Transport Network 
Executive Agency 
(TEN-T EA)

Research Executive 
Agency (REA)

6,5

1.1.2008–31.12.2017

349

Number 
of staff
(full-time 
equivalent 
units) 
Budget 2009

Programmes 
managed (*)

Logo

147

50

394

99

Implements part of  
the ‘Competitiveness 
and innovation’ frame-
work programme and 
Marco Polo II 

Implements EU ‘public 
health’ programme, 
‘Consumer policy’ 
programme and ‘Better 
training for safer food’ 
initiative

Implements 
programmes and 
actions in the fields of 
education and training, 
active citizenship, youth, 
audiovisual and culture

Implements the  
‘Trans-European 
 transport network’ 
(TEN-T) programme

Implements the ‘People’ 
programme and parts 
of the ‘Capacities’ and 
‘Cooperation’  
programmes under 
FP7. Carries out support 
services for a large part 
of FP7

European Research 
Council Executive 
Agency (ERCEA)

7,5

1.1.2008–31.12.2017

300

Implements the ‘Ideas’ 
programme under FP7

27,9

1 339

(*)  more detailed information on the programmes managed by the agencies can be found in Annex I.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
11  Decision no 1926/2006/ec of 

the european parliament and of the 

council (oJ l 404, 30.12.2006, p. 39).

12  Decision no 1350/2007/ec of 

the european parliament and of the 

council (oJ l 301, 20.11.2007, p. 3).

13  article 7 et seq. of the framework 

Regulation (ec) no 58/2003.

14  the court has recently issued a 

special report on the performance 

of regulatory agencies. see Special 

Report No 5/2008 — The European 

Union's agencies: Getting results.

11

10.  

 in several cases the original duration or mandate of an agenc y has 
bee n ex tended: 

(a )  e ac e a   m a n d a t e   h a s   b e e n   e x t e n d e d   fo u r   t i m e s   t o   d e a l   w i t h 
t he  new   g eneratio n  o f  p rogramme s  20 0 7 – 13   an d  to   a dd  n e w 
p ro gra mmes  in the fiel d of educati on ; 

(b)   phea has become  eahc by adding the ‘consumer polic y ’ pro -
gramm e  2007 –13 11  a nd  th e ‘f ood  safet y  trainin g’  program me 
to  t he n ew ‘he al th’ p ro gramm e  20 08 –1 3 12, an d

(c) 

ieea has become  eaci, by adding par ts of the  cip and the   marco 
polo ii programme to the ‘i ntelligent energy ’ programme.

11.  

12.  

13.  

14.  

 exe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   i m p l e m e n t   e u  s p e n d i n g   p r o g r a m m e s   t o t a l-
ling around 27,9 billion euro for the current multiannual financial 
framework (mff 2007–13).  tak ing into account also the tasks man-
aged  und er  t he  p revio us   mf f,  t he  total  amount  is  around  3 2  bil-
lion  euro. 

 the administrative budget of the executive agencies is drawn from 
t h e   f i n a n c i a l   e nve l o p e   o f   t h e   p ro g r a m m e s   u n d e r   t h e i r   m a n a g e -
ment. the corresponding appropriations are therefore outside the 
ceiling   o n  reso u rces  set   by  he adin g   5   of   t h e  m ff,  wh ich   refers   to 
th e ‘g enera l ’ adminis trat ive expe nd i ture  of  t h e e u in sti tut ion s. 

 the commission is responsible for super vising the executive agen-
cies’  a c tivities. the  a gen cies’  direc tor s  are  off icia ls  appointed   by 
the commission; the members of the steering committees are also 
appo inted by th e co mmis sio n 13. th e ag en cies’ an nual ac tivit y  re -
por t s a re annexed to  the re p or t s  o f  t h ei r  pare nt  Dgs.

 ex e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   d i f f e r   i n   v a r i o u s   w a y s   f r o m   t h e   s o - c a l l e d 
‘r e g u l a t o r y   a g e n c i e s’,   w h i c h   h a v e   b e e n   m a i n l y   d e v e l o p e d   s i n c e 
t h e   1 9 9 0 s,   to   d e a l   w i t h   t a s k s   o f   re g u l at i o n   at   e u  l e ve l   re l ate d   to 
t h e   ex p a n s i o n   o f   t h e   i nte r n a l   m a r k e t 1 4.  th e   m a i n   d i f fe re n ce s   a re 
that executive agencies implement spending programmes and are 
direc tly dependent on the commission, whereas regulator y agen -
cies mainly provide common rules and ser vices and operate under 
a management board composed of member states’ representatives 
(for  mo re det ail s see A nn ex II).

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
 
auDit  oBJective  anD  appR oach

12

15.  

16.  

 the overall objec tive of the audit was to assess whether the dele -
g at i o n   o f   o p e rat i o n a l   t a s k s   to   exe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   h a d   p rove d   to 
be a s uccess ful  ins tru ment fo r im ple menti ng  t he  e u  bud ge t.

 thi s wa s do ne by addres s ing th e fol lowi ng  q ue st ion s : 

(a)  were the decisions to create the executive agencies suppor ted 

by adequate analyses of the needs and the potential gains?

(b)   w h a t   b e n e f i t s   h ave   b e e n   a c h i e ve d   i n   t e r m s   o f   c o s t   s av i n g s, 

imp roved pe r fo r man ce and ot he r  ef f ic i en c y  g ain s ?

(c)  ha s   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   e f f e c t i v e l y   c a r r i e d   o u t   i t s   s u p e r v i s o r y 

ro le ?

17.  

 the audit was carried out from april to november 2008.  audit evi-
den ce  wa s  co l le c ted  thro u gh  doc ume nt ar y   a n alys es,   f ile   re v ie ws 
a n d   i nte r v i e ws   at   a l l   exe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   a n d   at   t h e   co m m i s s i o n . 
n a t i o n a l   g o o d   p r a c t i c e s   we re   u s e d   a s   a   b e n c h m a r k   i n   t h e   a re a s 
of o b jec t ive -s ettin g and p er for man ce  me asu reme nt.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
15  see especially the preamble 

(whereas 4 to 6) of the framework 

Regulation (ec) no 58/2003.

16  sec(2006) 662 final, 31 may 2006, 

‘guidelines for the establishment 

and operation of executive agencies 

financed by the general budget of 

the european communities’.

auDit  oBseR vations

13

t h e   c r eA t i o n   Pr o c e s s

i n i t iA t i v e  to   s e t   uP   t h e   e x e c u t i v e   AGe n c i e s   mAi n ly  
d r i v e n   by   co n s t r Ai n t s   o n   e mPloym e n t  w i t h i n  t h e 
co m m i s s i o n

18.  

 as reflec ted in the framewor k R egulation 15, the rationale for out -
sourcing implementation tasks to executive agencies was for them 
to provide better ser vice and efficienc y gains and for the commis-
s i o n   t o   fo c u s   p r i m a r i l y   o n   i t s   i n s t i t u t i o n a l   t a s k s   s u c h   a s   p o l i c y -
m a k i n g   a n d   s t r a t e g i c   m a n a g e m e n t .   sp e c i f i c   re a s o n s   fo r   s e t t i n g 
u p   a n   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c y   s h o u l d   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d   t h ro u g h   a   n e e d s 
asses sment  b ased o n t hese p r in c ipl es. 

19.  

 m ore recently, the general guidance issued by Dg BuDg 16 spelled 
ou t t he es sent ial  fac tors  on wh ic h a n e ed s  a sse ss me nt s h ould  be 
base d:

(a)  the need for the commission to focus on legislative and stra-
t e g i c   t a s k s   i n   p o l i c y   f o r m a t i o n   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g ,   i n c l u d i n g 
t ho se co nnec ted w it h c o mmun it y programmes; 

(b)  a   c l e a r   s e p a r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   p o l i c y   p r o g r a m m i n g   ( t h e   c o m-
m i s s i o n ' s   c o r e   b u s i n e s s )   a n d   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t e c h n i c a l 
p r o j e c t s ,   w h e r e   n o   d i s c r e t i o n a r y   p o w e r s   i m p l y i n g   p o l i t i c a l 
ch oice s are invo l ved; 

(c)  t h e   n e e d   fo r   a   h i g h   l e ve l   o f   t e c h n i c a l   e x p e r t i s e   t h ro u g h o u t 

t he p ro jec t  c ycle ; 

(d)  t he  p o ssib il it y  o f  eco nomies   of   sc a le  th roug h  a   hi g h  le vel  of 
s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   o r   t h e   r e g r o u p i n g   o f   s i m i l a r   p r o g r a m m e s   o r 
ac tivit ies w it hin  one agen c y ; 

(e)  t h e   n e e d   t o   c a r r y   o u t   c e r t a i n   a c t i v i t i e s   w i t h   i n c r e a s e d   v i s i-

b il it y. 

20.  

 t h e   c o u r t   a s s e s s e d   h o w   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a d   p u t   t h e s e   p r i n-
ciples into prac tice and how it had identified possible dr ivers for 
 d e vo l u t i o n   o f   t a s k s   b a s e d   o n   t h e   n a t u re   a n d   s p e c i f i c i t i e s   o f   t h e 
programmes, such as the level of technical exper tise required, the 
p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   re a c h i n g   s t a n d a rd i s at i o n   o f   t i m e - co n s u m i n g   t a s k s 
and  th e gro upin g of s imilar ac tiv i ti es,  l ead in g  to  s yn ergie s. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
14

21.  

 the cour t found that the initiative to set up agencies was mainly 
t a k e n   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   p r a c t i c a l   p r o b l e m s ,   i n 
par ticular the need to compensate for discontinuing taos and to 
allow for the continuation of the programmes they managed when 
n o   n e w   re s o u rc e s   we re   m a d e   av a i l a b l e   u n d e r   t h e   c e i l i n g   o n   t h e 
commission’s administrative budget set by the mff   (paragraph  12). 
Despite the intentions set out in the white paper and the guidance 
docu m ent s,  st aff shor tag es (in n umber  a n d spe c ial i sat ion )  at t h e 
com mis sio n were the main  dr iver  for  ex ter n alis ati on  (s e e B ox 1) . 
R e c e n t   d o c u m e n t s   c o n f i r m   t h a t   i t   c o n t i n u e s   t o   b e   t h e   co m m i s-
s i o n’s   p r a c t i c e   t o   e x p l o r e   t h e   o p t i o n   o f   c r e a t i n g   n e w   e xe c u t i v e 
agenc ies w he n faced w ith  a s hor t age  of  re s ources 17. 

17  sec(2007) 530 ‘planning and 

optimising commission human 

resources to serve eu priorities’, p. 15, 

and com(2008) 135 final ‘european 

agencies — the way forward’, p. 3. 

the screening did not report a need 

for new executive agencies in the 

near future. however, externalisation 

of a limited number of other 

programmes to existing agencies was 

envisaged.

b o x   1

•	

• 

• 

	the cBa for the marco polo programme (implemented by eaci) explicitly states that the reason 
for delegating implementation to an executive agency was the absence of sufficient human 
resources at the commission.

 the creation of phea followed considerable implementation problems and increasing payment 
delays related to the need for additional resources within Dg sanco after the dismantling of 
the former corresponding tao. as a consequence of those problems, when they came to adopt 
a new ‘public health’ programme in 2002, the council and the european parliament insisted that 
‘appropriate structural arrangements’ should be made to carry out the programme. this was 
the argument to support the establishment of phea.

 the focus on staff shortages has also produced a wide range of implementation modes within 
the same programme. the three specific programmes within the ‘competitiveness and innova-
tion’ framework programme (cip) are managed in various ways: the ‘i ntelligent energy europe’ 
programme continues to be managed largely by eaci.  for the ‘i nformation and communica-
tion technnology — policy support’ programme, the commission opted to continue direct 
mana gement by Dg  infso. Regarding the ‘entrepreneurship and innovation’ programme (eip), 
Dg entR delegated major parts of its share to eaci and Dg  env delegated the eip eco-innovation 
projects. for the eip parts of Dg  ecfin, the  cip legal base stipulated the continuation of the 
implementation of the cip financial instruments by the e uropean i nvestment fund. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
15

22.  

23.  

24.  

25.  

l i m i t e d   co n t r i b u t i o n   f r o m   co s t–b e n e f i t  
AnAlys e s  to  t h e   d e c i s i o n-mAk i nG   Pr o c e s s  

 the framework Regulation requires that the setting-up of an execu-
tive agenc y should be based upon a cost–benefit analysis (cBa ) 18, 
providing justification for the outsourcing and tak ing into account 
a number of fac tors such as the costs of coordination and checks, 
the resulting impact on human resources at the commission, possi-
ble financial savings, the benefits afforded by additional efficienc y 
and flexibility in the implementation of outsourced tasks, simplifi-
cation  of  the  procedures  used,  proximit y  of  outsourced  ac tivities 
to   f i n a l   b e n e f i c i a r i e s,   v i s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   co m m u n i t y   a s   p ro m o te r   o f 
t h e   co m m u n i t y   p ro gra m m e   co n ce r n e d   a n d   t h e   n e e d   to   m a i nt a i n 
an adequate level of k now-how inside the c ommission 19. 

 th e   co u r t   a s s e s s e d   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   cBa s   s u p p o r t i n g   t h e   d e c i-
sions to set up the agencies, analysing whether all relevant factors 
had  be en adequ atel y consid ered. 

 i t   fo u n d   t h a t ,   i n   g e n e r a l ,   t h e   cBa s   w e r e   r e s t r i c t e d   t o   t h e   f i n a n-
cial aspec ts and took little account of other fac tors justifying the 
o u t s o u rc i n g   a s   s e t   o u t   i n   p a ra gra p h   2 2 .   em p h a s i s   w a s   p l a ce d   o n 
the savings deriving from employing cheaper contrac t staff rather 
than  per manent  officials 20. the  aspec ts  of  improved  per for mance 
a n d   e f f i c i e n c y   g a i n s   we re   s c a rce l y   co n s i d e re d,   t h o u g h   i n c l u d i n g 
s u c h   e l e m e n t s   i n   t h e   a n a l ys i s   m i g h t   h ave   s t re n g t h e n e d   t h e   c a s e 
for the creation of agencies. as such, the analyses were mainly cost 
compar isons, rather than cBa s in the proper sense of the ter m.

 on   t h e   s i d e   o f   c o s t s ,   s o m e   e l e m e n t s   r e l a t e d   t o   t h e   f u n c t i o n i n g 
a n d   t h e   w i n d i n g - u p   o f   t h e   a g e n c i e s   a re   m i s s i n g.  th u s,   t h e   co s t s 
of the additional staff needed at the commission to super vise the 
agencies and at the agencies for hor izontal func tions were not or 
not acc uratel y incl u ded (except  for  te n -t e a) ; nor  were the  costs 
o f   r u n n i n g   t h e   p ro gra m m e s   b e yo n d   t h e   e s t a b l i s h e d   l i fe - c yc l e   o f 
th e ag e nc y. 

18  the cost–benefit analysis 

compares all the relevant costs and 

benefits over time to determine 

whether the benefits outweigh the 

costs, and if so, by what proportion. 

19  article 3 of the framework 

Regulation (ec) no 58/2003. article 

25 of the framework Regulation 

provides for such analyses to be 

repeated every three years in the 

framework of the external evaluation 

reports to be drawn up on the 

operations of each agency. 

20  following an earlier indication 

from the european parliament, the 

personnel of executive agencies 

should be composed of 75 % 

contract agents and 25 % officials 

seconded from the commission 

and temporary staff (see coBu 

working Documents 10, 11 and 12, 

4.11.1999, cit., p. 25). for ten-t ea, 

however, the cBa assumed that the 

composition would be 55 % contract 

staff and 45 % officials and temporary 

staff. a staff composition of 60 % 

contract staff and 40 % officials was 

taken into account in eacea cBa 

for programme strands relating to 

external relations (emecw, tempus, 

em ii action 2). 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
16

21  in 2005 the commission recognised 

that: ‘the most important lesson is 

that the time needed to plan and set 

up an executive agency should not 

be underestimated. the first agencies 

established point to a lead time of 

about two years from the commission 

decision creating the agency to the 

moment when the agency is fully 

operational’ (issue paper ref. sg.c.2 D 

(2005) 11582, part 4).

22  it took an average of almost two 

years from the decision to establish 

an agency and its full operation. 

in particular, this period was 

24,5 months for phea; 24 months 

for eaci, 18 months for ten-t ea; 

12 months for eacea. Rea and eRcea 

are expected to be operational by 

mid-2009, which is after a period of 

19,5 months.

23  only eacea used several rates to 

take into account the distribution of 

the personnel by grade.

26.  

27.  

28.  

29.  

 m o r e o v e r,   t h e   t i m e   n e e d e d   t o   s e t   u p   a   n e w   a g e n c y   w a s   u n d e r -
estimated and the transition costs of the overlapping commission/
a g e n c i e s   w e re   n o t   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   a n a l y s e s,   e ve n   t h o u g h   i t   w a s 
k n ow n   t h at   i t   to o k   a b o u t   t wo   ye a r s   b e fo re   a n   a g e n c y   re a c h e s   i t s 
full operational autonomy 21. for phea, the transition costs were in-
cluded in the analysis but the initial forecast of three to six months 
for the star t-up of the agenc y was significantly over- optimistic 22. 

 i n ad dit ion, t here are s ome el em e nt s o f uncer tai nt y i n  t he  analy-
ses. first, the comparison is generally made using a single average 
u n i t   c o s t   fo r   t h e   v a r i o u s   c a t e g o r i e s   o f   c o n t r a c t   s t a f f   w h e re a s   i n 
p ra c t i ce   t h e y   va r y   i n   gra d e   a n d   t h e re fo re   i n   co s t 2 3.  th i s   ave ra g e 
i s   b a s e d   o n   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   s t a f f   c o m p o s i t i o n ,   w h i c h   s h o w s   a 
prevalence of lower grades compared to the (specialised) person-
n e l   to   b e   re c r u i te d   by   t h e   a g e n c i e s   a n d   l e a d s   to   a n   u n d e r s t a t e -
ment  o f t he  co st s  fo r the agenc i es  o pti on .

 s e c o n d ,   t h e   e s t i m a t e s   u s e d   t o   c a l c u l a t e   t h e   s t a f f   n e e d s   o f   t h e 
a g e n c i e s   a n d   t h e   r e s u l t i n g   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   h u m a n 
r e s o u r c e s   ( i n   t e r m s   o f   p e r m a n e n t   p o s t s   s a v e d   a n d   r e - a l l o c a t e d 
a n d   c o n t r a c t   p o s t s   s u p p re s s e d )   we r e   n o t   b a c k e d   u p   b y   r e l i a b l e 
data on wor k load and produc tivit y (except for the ten- t  ea). not 
only does this compromise the accurac y of the process, but it also 
h i n d e r s   a n   e f fe c t i ve   e x   p o s t  e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e   a c t u a l   l e ve l   o f   t h e 
ben efit s  (as expl ained  in  p aragraph  3 7  be low) .

 i n   m o s t   c a s e s,   co r re c t i n g   t h e   cBa s   to   t a k e   a cco u n t   o f   t h e   we a k-
nesses set out above would not affec t the conclusion in favour of 
set ting   u p  an  ag enc y  (give n  the   larg e   m argi n  o f  s avin g s   on  s ta ff 
costs): the exception is the smallest agenc y (phea — now  eahc ), 
wh ere  t he b alan ce o f p u rel y fi nan ci al arg uments  could  h ave  cast 
doubt on the recommendation to proceed. nonetheless the  cBa s 
a r e   o p e n   t o   t h e   c r i t i c i s m   t h a t   t h e y   d o   n o t   g i v e   a   s a t i s f a c t o r y 
ove ra ll   p ic tu re  o f  th e  financ ial  co ns equ en ce s  an d   oth e r   ben e fi t s 
in te r m s o f effic ienc y  and effec t iven es s.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
17

30.  

 i n  p rac tice,  th e  co ur t   did  no t  identify   any   case  o f  cBa s  adv is ing 
against setting up an executive agenc y. however, not all cases of 
p o s i t i v e   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   w e r e   fo l l o w e d   b y   t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   a n 
agenc y 24 as the final decision was based on a more comprehensive 
eval uatio n of  t he arg uments  for a n d ag ai ns t.  th erefore, the  cBas 
bro ug ht l itt l e added val ue to th e  pro ce ss an d  d id no t prov id e a n 
adequate basis to allow decision-makers to form an opinion about 
diffe rent  alter natives. 

31.  

32.  

t h e   b e n e f i t s   Ac h i e v e d

sA v i nGs   f r o m   lo w e r   s tAf f   co s t s   b u t   o v e r Al l  
Qu An t i f i c At i o n   d i f f i c u lt

 co n ce r n i n g   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   b e n e f i t s,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   a s s u m p t i o n 
i s   t h a t   s a v i n g s   a r e   a c h i e v e d   b y   r e c r u i t i n g   a   7 5   %   p r o p o r t i o n   o f 
cont ra c t st aff ins tead o f p er mane nt  of f ic i a ls  at t he  a ge nc i es 25.

 i n   f a c t ,   a   t o t a l   o f   1   3 3 9   p o s t s   w e r e   a u t h o r i s e d   f o r   t h e   a g e n-
c i e s   i n   t h e   b u d g e t   fo r   2 0 0 9 ,   o f   w h i c h   1   2 2 7   we re   n e w l y   c re ate d : 
 94 1  co nt rac t  st af f,  256 temp orar y  staff and 3 0  n ati on a l exper ts 26. 
th i s  re p re s e n t s   a   re a l   p ro p o r t i o n   o f   7 0   %   c o n t r a c t   s t a f f.   as s u m-
ing   a  p o st-p er-p os t  average  s ala r y  dif fe re nce   of   abo ut   5 0   % ,   it   i s 
c l e a r   t h a t   c o n s i d e r a b l e   b e n e f i t s   s t e m   f r o m   t h e   o u t s e t   f r o m   t h e 
p re v a l e n ce   o f   l owe r   p a i d   s t a f f   co m p a re d   to   t h e   s t a f f   w h o   wo u l d 
have  b een hired at th e c o mmiss ion .

24  this was for instance the case for 

the envisaged eurostat agency.

25  see footnote 20. this percentage 

is applied to all the agencies, with 

the exception of ten-t ea, for which 

a composition of 65 % contract and 

35 % temporary and seconded staff 

has been authorised. 

26  Source: general Budget 2009. the 

remaining 112 posts (technically 

known as full-time equivalent (fte)) 

are commission staff seconded to 

the agencies (the so-called ‘frozen’ 

posts): they generate a corresponding 

reduction of the commission’s budget 

administrative appropriations, so 

they have no impact on the benefits. 

as regards the temporary posts, it 

can be assumed that the costs would 

be the same whoever the employer 

(the commission or the agencies), so 

their impact on benefits can also be 

considered neutral. this calculation 

does not take into account the people 

previously employed by the taos.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
18

33.  

34.  

35.  

 however, there are some elements of uncer taint y which make the 
exac t amount of the savings difficult to quantify. firstly, even as-
s u m i n g   t h at   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   wo u l d   h ave   h i re d   ex a c t l y   t h e   s a m e 
n u m b e r   o f   p e o p l e   a s   t h e   a g e n c i e s ,   t h e  ‘a l l   c o m m i s s i o n   p e r m a-
n e nt   o f f i c i a l s’  hy p o t h e s i s   d o e s   n o t   co n s i d e r   t h at   ( at   l e a s t   s o m e ) 
c o n t r a c t   s t a f f   m i g h t   a l s o   h a v e   b e e n   r e c r u i t e d .   s e c o n d l y,   a c t u a l 
d at a   o n   s t a f f   co s t s   ava i l a b l e   fo r   o n e   a g e n c y   s h ow   t h at   t h e   ave r -
a g e   co s t   fo r   co nt ra c t   s t a f f   i s   a ro u n d   1 0   %   h i g h e r   t h a n   t h at   u s e d 
by the commission for general pur poses (see B ox 2) 27. this is due 
t o   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   a g e n c i e s ’  c o n t r a c t   s t a f f   a r e   m o s t l y   h i g h   g r a d e 
wh ere as  the   co mmis sio n’s  averag e  cost   reflec t s  th e   composi ti on 
o f   i t s   p e r s o n n e l,   w i t h   p re va l e n ce   o f   co n t ra c t   s t a f f   i n   m a i n l y   l ow 
g r a d e s .   i n   v i e w   o f   a   m o r e   s a t i s f a c t o r y   c o m p a r i s o n ,   i t   w o u l d   b e 
n e ce s s a r y   to   h ave   ave ra g e   s t a f f   co s t s   d i f fe re nt i ate d   by   c ate g o r y 
of p ers onnel 28.

 in addition, the staff savings need to be reduced by the additional 
co s t s   o f   t h e   n e w   s u p e r v i s o r y   f u n c t i o n s   p e r fo r m e d   by   t h e   p a re nt 
D g s   a n d   t h e   o ve r h e a d   c o s t s   re l a t e d   t o   t h e   h o r i z o n t a l   f u n c t i o n s 
in  e ach  ag enc y 29.  the   co mm ission  repor ts   th at  the  propor ti on   of 
staff assigned to such super visor y and suppor t functions is around 
13 –14  % o f the  to tal  staff o f th e a ge n cie s 30. 

27  see the recent interim evaluation 

report of the eacea (paragraph 64). 

28  see also paragraph 27. 

29  the parent Dgs have staff 

specifically devoted to the 

supervision of the agencies. on the 

other hand, all executive agencies 

have a director, a data protection 

supervisor, an internal auditor and an 

accountant. 

30  this percentage has decreased 

with the increase in size of the 

agencies, which has allowed for 

economies of scale. 

31  article 13(6)(c) of framework 

Regulation (ec) no 58/2003.

 o n   t h e   o t h e r   h a n d ,   f o r   t h o s e   p r o g r a m m e s   p r e v i o u s l y   m a n a g e d 
direc tl y by t he co mm issio n s er vices, any s aving is  de pe nd ent on 
t h e   e f f e c t i v e   r e d e p l o y m e n t   o f   t h e   s t a f f   p r e v i o u s l y   a s s i g n e d   t o 
t h e   w o r k   t h a t   h a s   b e e n   t r a n s f e r r e d   t o   t h e   a g e n c i e s   a n d   o n   t h e 
sup p ressio n o f t he contrac t  staff  pos ts  wit hi n  th e  cor res pon din g 
pro gra mme are as at th e c o mm ission 31.

b o x   2

for legislative proposals, Dg BuDg uses the following average unit costs, estimated for the  com-
mission as a whole:

•  122 000 euro per year for permanent/temporary officials, and 

•  64 000 euro for contract staff.

Recruiting  contract  staff  instead  of  permanent  officials  would  therefore  allow  for  per  capita 
 theoretical savings of about 50 %. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
19

36.  

37.  

38.  

 following the creation of the six executive agencies, the commis-
sion planned to free 267 staff (159 permanent posts + 108 contract 
a g e n t s )   w i t h i n   t h e   c o r r e s p o n d i n g   Dgs .   o f   t h e s e   s t a f f,   2 0 9   ( 1 3 1 
permanent posts + 78 contrac t agents) had been ac tually freed as 
o f   1   J a n u a r y   2 0 0 9   ( s e e   Ta b l e   2) .   fo r   eR c e a,   n o   s t a f f   a re   p l a n n e d 
to b e f reed as t he ac tivities dele gate d  are  to tal ly  ne w. 

 however, the adequac y of these plans cannot be verified as there 
is no reliable information on the ex ante situation at the  commis-
sion concerning the staff allocated to the programmes taken over 
b y   t h e   a g e n c i e s   o r   o n   t h e   s p l i t   i n   t h e   wo r k l o a d   b e t we e n   p o l i c y 
t a s k s   ( w h i c h   re m a i n   w i t h   t h e   co m m i s s i o n )   a n d   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
t a s k s.   no r   d o e s   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   h ave   s u c h   f i g u re s   fo r   s t a f f   w h o 
cur re nt l y car r y  o ut s imilar  tas ks  wit h i n  it s Di rec to rate s- g en eral.

 i n this respec t, the cour t notes that the separate presentation of 
the operating budgets of the agencies in the communit y general 
budget has increased transparenc y. indeed, this provides relevant 
i n fo r m a t i o n   a b o u t   t h e   re s o u rc e s   ( a n d   re l a t e d   c o s t s )   n e e d e d   fo r 
running programmes which is not necessar ily available when the 
com m issio n r uns th em it sel f.

39.  

 even including the impac t of the uncer tainties above, the savings 
margin  stil l re mains  s ignific ant.

tAb l e   2 

fr e e d   Po s t s

Total number of staff  
to be freed by 2012

Staff actually freed  
as of 1.1.2009 (1)

Permanent posts

Contract agents

Permanent  
posts

Contract agents

EACEA

IEEA/EACI

PHEA/EAHC

TEN-T EA

ERCEA

REA

15

28

22

56

0

38

Total

159

18

5

0

6

0

79

108

30

30

15

56

0

0

131

18

0

0

6

0

54

78

( 1) S ource: working Document — part iii to the 2010 pDB — com(2009) 300.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
20

40.  

41.  

b e t t e r   s e r v i c e   d e l i v e r y

 B etter s er vice del iver y is  o ne of  th e  be ne f it s expe c te d f rom  con-
cent rat ing  l im ited and wel l - defi n ed  t ask s in  a s in g le  ag e nc y  ( th e 
spe cial isat ion fac tor).

 th e   co u r t   a s s e s s e d   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   a s p e c t s   o f   p ro g r a m m e   i m-
p l e m e n t a t i o n   u s i n g   q u a n t i t a t i ve   i n d i c a to r s   to   co m p a re   t h e   p e r-
formance of the agencies with that of the commission prior to the 
e x te r n a l i s a t i o n .  th i s   co n ce r n e d   t h e   e va l u at i o n   o f   p ro p o s a l s   a n d 
cont rac t ing, the mo nitor in g of cont rac tor s’ per for ma nce an d t he 
p ay m e nt   p ro ce d u re s.   o t h e r   a s p e c t s   o f   a   q u a l i t at i ve   n at u re   we re 
also co nsidered.

42.  

 the   au dit   showed  that   t he  execut ive   ag e nci es   g e ne rally   per for m 
better than their parent Dgs before.  this is demonstrated by (see 
B ox  3):

(a)  a   s h o r t e r   t i m e - t o - c o n t r a c t   ( e v a l u a t i o n   a n d   n e g o t i a t i o n   o f 

 p ro po s als);

(b)   more rapid approval procedures for both technical and finan-

cial  re p or ts o n the p rojec ts;  and

(c)  shor ter time -to -payments (from the payment request to pay-

me nt ). 

b o x   3

as an example, the contracting time for the ‘public health’ programme was reduced from 345 days 
when the programme was managed by the parent Dg to 219 days; the payment period went down 
from 503 to 91 days; and the time required for approving the technical and financial reports was 
shortened from 90 to 42 days.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
21

43.  

44.  

 i n addition, the agencies simplified the management procedures, 
t h e r e b y   r e d u c i n g   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   fo r   a p p l i c a n t s   a n d 
pro jec t p ro mo ter s (s ee B ox  4) .

 the audit also noted that the agencies enhanced communication 
with potential applicants and ensured the dissemination of results 
t o   a   w i d e r   p u b l i c,   t h u s   p ro v i d i n g   m o re   v i s i b i l i t y   fo r   e u  a c t i o n s. 
the   ag encie s  o rganis e  s everal  eve nts   (i n fodays,  infor mation  ses-
s i o n s ,   w o r k s h o p s ) ,   e i t h e r   d i r e c t l y   o r   t h r o u g h  ‘n a t i o n a l   c o n t a c t 
points’, to inform potential beneficiar ies about new programmes, 
guiding them through the procedures and providing data on pre -
viou s p ro grammes  (s ee B ox  5).

45.  

fur th er example s  are s how n  in  A nn ex   II I.

b o x   4

b o x   5

as an example, eacea simplified the call for proposals and the application forms, moved to online 
submission, clarified the selection criteria, reduced the number of contract annexes, extended the 
use of flat rate and lump sums and simplified the reporting  obligations. 

all eaci activities are supported by a communication plan that defines, for each of the programmes, 
which activity is planned in which period of the year. a website, a logo, leaflets and news alerts 
are designed for each programme. in a previous report (Special Report No  7/2008 — Intelligent 
Energy 2003-2006) the  court observed that these initiatives had a positive impact on the degree 
of applicants‘ satisfaction. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
46.  

47.  

48.  

49.  

50.  

22

 as  regards  ex tending  the  mandate  of  existing  agencies,  synergies 
w e r e   a c h i e v e d   b y   u s i n g   t o o l s   a l r e a d y   d e v e l o p e d   fo r   s i m i l a r   p r o -
grammes. this concerns in par ticular the communication tools used 
for  sending  out  calls  and  infor ming  potential  applicants,  the  pro -
cedures to find and manage exper ts and the contract management.

l i m i t e d   e f f i c i e n c y   G Ai n s   f o r   r e c r u i t m e n t 

 executive agencies were also supposed to provide efficienc y gains 
t h r o u g h   m o r e   f l e x i b i l i t y   i n   h i r i n g   s t a f f,   t h e   c a p a c i t y   t o   a t t r a c t 
high ly  qual ified p ers onnel an d more  s taf f in g  st abi lit y.

32  this was a key milestone, as the 

director is in charge of recruiting the 

rest of the staff.

33  article 30 of commission 

Regulation (ec) no 1653/2004 of 

21 september 2004 on a standard 

financial regulation for the executive 

agencies (oJ l 297, 22.9.2004, p. 6), 

amended by commission Regulation 

(ec) no 1821/2005 (oJ l 293, 

9.11.2005, p. 10): the accountant 

may now be recruited on the private 

market.

 o n   t h e   f i r s t   p o i n t ,   t h e   re c r u i t m e n t   o f   c o n t r a c t   s t a f f   c a n   b y   d e f -
i n i t i o n   a d j u s t   m o re   e a s i l y   t o   a g e n c i e s’  s p e c i f i c   n e e d s.   ho we ve r, 
t h e   p ro ce s s   o f   s e l e c t i n g   a d e q u a te   p e r s o n n e l   p rove d   to   b e   m o re 
d i f f i c u l t   t h a n   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   h a d   a s s u m e d.   pr o b l e m s   i n   h i r i n g 
th e s t aff are t he main reas on for  th e  ag en c ie s’ s low st ar t-up ( see 
para grap h 26). 

 t h e   a p p o i n t m e n t   o f   t h e   d i r e c t o r s   w a s   a   l e n g t hy   e n t e r p r i s e   a n d 
finding a suitable candidate took an average of eight months 32. for 
the post of accountant, the rule that the accounting officer should 
be  a n  o ffic ial  seco nded   by   t he   commiss ion   h ad  to  be  am en ded 33 
bec aus e no  su itab l e candidates  were   foun d  for  e aci an d p he a.

 h i r i n g   s t a f f   w i t h   s p e c i a l i s e d   e x p e r t i s e   a l s o   p rove d   to   b e   a   m o re 
time - consuming task than expected. the agencies make use of the 
same lists of candidates as the commission and the establishment 
pla ns  a re  al so   su b jec t   to  t he  a pproval  o f   Dg  aDmin  (be sides  th e 
approval of the parent Dg). moreover, recruitment at the agencies 
i s   m a d e   a t   l o w e r   g r a d e s   fo r   t e m p o r a r y   p o s t s   a n d   m o r e   y e a r s   o f 
exper ience are requested for contrac t staff compared to contrac t 
s t a f f   w i t h   s i m i l a r   t a s k s   a t   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n .  t h i s   r e d u c e s   t h e   a t -
t ra c t i ve n e s s   o f   t h e   j o b   p o s i t i o n s,   d e s p i te   t h e   o f fe r   o f   re n e wa b l e 
cont rac ts,  in  co nt ras t   to   the  t hre e   yea r s’  m ax im um   appli cable   to 
com mis sio n cont rac t s t af f. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
 
23

51.  

 t h e   a g e n c i e s   c a n   a l s o   u s e   e m p l o y m e n t   a g e n c y   s t a f f.   su c h   s t a f f 
a re   u s e d   ex te n s i ve l y   at   e ac e a ,   w h i c h   h a s   h i re d   a n   ave ra g e   o f   5 5  
inter im  units  per  year. while  this  solution  provided  greater  flexi-
b i l i t y   i n   c o p i n g   w i t h   p e a k   p e r i o d   p ro b l e m s,   t h e   h i g h   n u m b e r   o f 
such staff reflec ts more fundamental problems of recruitment and 
conflic ts with the expec tations of exper ienced and stable staff.

52.  

53.  

54.  

t h e co m m i s s i o n’s s uPe r v i s i o n  o f t h e AGe n c i e s

A   f o c u s   o n   b u dGe t Ar y   e x e c u t i o n

 a s   m e n t i o n e d   a b o v e   ( p a r a g r a p h   1 3 ) ,   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   r e t a i n s   a 
super visor y role in respec t of the executive agencies’ ac tivities 34. 
th i s   s h o u l d   i n c l u d e   t h e   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   c l e a r   p r i o r i t i e s   a n d   re s u l t -
or ie nted  g o als  in  t he  annu al   wor k   programme s  (aw ps)   approved 
by the commission and an assessment of the ac tivities carried out 
by  the  ag enc y  th rou gh  t he ann ual  ac ti vit y  re por ts  (aaR s) 35. 

 the   co ur t   asse sse d  th e  us e  t hat   was  mad e  of   th e   ag en c ie s’  aw ps 
a s   a   t o o l   fo r   o b j e c t i v e - s e t t i n g,   t h e   a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s   o f   t h e   p e r -
fo r m a n ce   i n d i c ato r s   e s t a b l i s h e d   fo r   2 0 0 6   to   2 0 0 8 ,   a s   we l l   a s   t h e 
qual it y of t he rep o r ting fo r the ye ar s  2 0 0 6   and  2 0 0 7 . 

 the timing of the awps does not enable the commission to make 
use of them to define the agencies’ pr ior ities and objec tives. the 
exec ut ive  agen cies’ framewo r k R eg ulat ion re quires  th e  ad opt io n 
of t he ag e nc ies’ awps no  l ater than  th e beginn ing of  each  ye ar 36, 
whereas the awps of the community programmes delegated to the 
agencies, according to the financial Regulation, are only adopted 
by   t h e   f i r s t   q u a r te r   o f   t h e   ye a r.  th i s   c a l e n d a r   i s   n o t   s u i t a b l e   fo r 
e n s u r i n g   c o n s i s t e n c y.   a s   a   m a t t e r   o f   f a c t ,   e xc e p t   fo r   e a h c,   t h e 
awps were approved by the commission late in the middle of the 
yea r (e aci,  20 08 ),  at t he end of th e  ye ar  (e ac e a,  2 0 0 7  a nd 20 0 8) , 
or  no t  at  al l  (eac ea,  20 06 ).

34  article 20 of the executive 

agencies’ framework Regulation. 

more in general, article 54(1) of the 

financial Regulation applicable to 

the general budget of the european 

communities (council Regulation 

(ec, euratom) no 1605/2002), ‘the 

implementing tasks delegated 

must be clearly defined and fully 

supervised as to the use made of 

them’. 

35  article 9(2) of the executive 

agencies’ framework Regulation 

requires the annual work programme 

to entail detailed objectives and 

indicators. in its opinion no 8/2001 

(oJ c 345, 6.12.2001, p. 1) on the 

executive agencies, the court had 

already stressed that ‘when the 

work programme is adopted at 

the beginning of the year, clear 

objectives should also be adopted 

for the agency together with 

performance indicators to assess 

how well the agency is carrying out 

its tasks’. the court had also pointed 

out that the annual activity reports 

‘should contain sufficient information 

and analysis for an appreciation of 

the extent to which the objectives 

of the agency concerned have been 

met, and of the efficiency of the 

agency’s management’. 

36  article 9(2) of the executive 

agencies' framework Regulation.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
24

55.  

56.  

57.  

 wi t h   re g a rd   t o   t h e   c o n t e n t   o f   t h e   aw ps,   t h e   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s 
have   g enerall y  been   ass igned   tas ks   wi th out  re s ult s- o r ie nte d  o b -
jec tive s and related target s.

 th e   a g e n c i e s’  aw ps   s e t   o u t   to o   m a ny   i n d i c a to r s   ( f ro m   5 2   to   1 0 9 
fo r   2 0 0 8 ,   s e e   C h a r t   1)   w h e re a s   g o o d   n a t i o n a l   p r a c t i c e s   s u g g e s t 
using  o nly a l imited numb e r of  k ey  i nd i c ator s. 

 m oreover,  the  indic ator s us ed are  most ly  re late d to t he  man age -
ment  ac t ivitie s (task s and wor k lo ad)  rat he r  th an to t h e re sult s of 
t h e   p ro g r a m m e s   m a n a g e d .   on l y   a   l i m i t e d   n u m b e r   o f   i n d i c a t o r s 
aim  at  m easu r ing  del iver y   aga ins t  obj e c tive s  (ef fe c ti ve n es s)   an d 
th ere  a re  no   indic ato rs   to   m ea sure   th e   re lat ion sh i p  be t we e n  t he 
res ou rces e mpl oyed and t he resul ts  a ch ie ve d  ( eff i ci en c y ). 

chAr t   1 

  nu m b e r   An d  t y Pe   o f   i n d i c Ato r s   i n   AwP s

4
6

39

60

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

13

31

54

1

1

5

3

3

47

46

EACEA 

EACI 

PHEA 

TEN-T EA 

Tasks

Workload

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Others

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
25

58.  

59.  

60.  

 a s   r e g a r d s   r e p o r t i n g,   t h i s   i s   u s u a l l y   c o n f i n e d   t o   t h e   b u d g e t a r y 
d a t a   ( e . g.   t h e   c o n s u m p t i o n   o f   c o m m i t m e n t   a p p r o p r i a t i o n s   a n d 
p a y m e n t   d e l a y s ) .   t h e   a aR s   a r e   n o t   a l w a y s   c o n s i s t e n t   w i t h   t h e 
i n d i c ato r s   o f   t h e   aw ps,   m a k e   n o   s ys te m at i c   co m p a r i s o n   w i t h   a l l 
t h e   t a r g e t s   s e t   i n   t h e   aw ps   a n d   m a k e   n o   r e fe r e n c e   t o   p r o g r e s s 
a c h i e ve d   f ro m   ye a r   to   ye a r,   o r   to   co r re c t i ve   a c t i o n s   re q u i re d   fo r 
th e f ut ure.

 Due to the weak nesses set out in paragraphs 54 to 58, the commis-
sion's control over the agencies’ ac tivities is not fully effective. on 
an operational level, there are informal contacts on a regular basis 
bet ween staff at the commission and the agencies (facilitated by 
t h e i r   g e o gra p h i c a l   p rox i m i t y ) .   i f   t h i s   e n s u re s   co m m u n i c at i o n   o n 
day-to - day management issues, it does not take the place of well-
structured relationships based on clear per formance measurement 
instru me nt s and  rep o r ts. 

 th i s   i s   a l s o   c r u c i a l   i n   t h e   l o n g e r   te r m   fo r   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   s t ra-
te gi c   f u n c t i o n s   ( i t s  ‘co re   b u s i n e s s’ ) ,   w h i c h   re q u i re   k n ow l e d g e   o f 
pro jec t   impl ement ation  o n  t he  groun d  ( e spe c iall y   for   pol ic y   d o -
m a i n s   t h at   re l y   h e av i l y   o n   e v i d e n ce - b a s e d   p ro j e c t   re s u l t s   to   d e -
velop  new  init iatives ). 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
conclusions anD   
RecommenD ations

26

61.  

62.  

63.  

 the cour t ’s audit showed that the initiative to set up the six execu-
t i ve   a g e n c i e s   c re ate d   s i n ce   2 0 0 3   wa s   m a i n l y   d r i ve n   by   t h e   n e e d 
to co mp ensate for staff  s ho r tage s  at  t h e c ommiss ion. 

 the commission made pragmatic use of the ability to set up execu-
tive agencies, responding to problems as they arose. on the other 
h a n d,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   o w n   g u i d a n c e   s u g g e s t s   a   m o re   s y s t e m-
atic approach to the creation of agencies; and it is suboptimal to 
co n s i d e r   s e t t i n g   u p   a g e n c i e s   o n l y   w h e n   fo rce d   to   d o   s o   by   s t a f f 
shor t ag es o r o t her ex ter nal  con st rai nts. 

 the   cos t–b enefit   anal ys es  accompany i ng   t h e  d ec i si on s  to  create 
th e ag encies fo c us ed o n cos t com par i son s,  took  li ttl e a ccount o f 
ot h er rel evant b enefits,  and  were  n ot  ba c ke d up by  re li able  data 
on work load and produc tivit y. i n addition, some of the costs were 
i n co r re c t l y   e s t i m a te d.  th e   cBa s   b ro u g h t   l i m i te d   a d d e d   v a l u e   to 
th e d ecis io n-mak ing  p roces s. 

re c o m m e n d At i o n   1

t h e co mmissio n sho ul d re consider it s p ro ce dures fo r ide ntif y -
i n g   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   f o r   e x t e r n a l i s a t i o n   a n d   f o r   c o n s i d e r i n g   t h e 
e s t ab lishm e nt o r th e e x te nsi o n  o f  a g e n ci e s . 

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n s u r e   t h a t   t h e   c B a s   a r e   m o r e   c o m -
p l e te   to   a l l ow   t h e m   to   co nt r i b u te   f u l l y   a n d   e f f e c t i ve l y   to   t h e 
d e cisi o n - m ak in g p ro ce ss .

64.  

 fi n a n c i a l   s av i n g s   c l e a r l y   re s u l t   f ro m   re c r u i t i n g   c o n t r a c t   s t a f f   a t 
lower grades compared to the commission’s officials. however, the 
p re c i s e   a m o u n t   o f   t h e   s a v i n g s   c a n n o t   b e   a c c u r a t e l y   q u a n t i f i e d. 
moreover, the adequac y of the plans concerning the posts needed 
by   t h e   a g e n c i e s   a n d   t h e   p o s t s   to   b e   f re e d   at   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   a s 
a   co n s e q u e n c e   o f   t h e   e x te r n a l i s a t i o n   c a n n o t   b e   a s s e s s e d   i n   t h e 
abse nce  of   reliab l e  data  avail a ble   on   th e  ex   an te  situation  at  th e 
com mis sio n.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
 
 
27

65.  

 as a result of their specialisation in well- defined tasks, the execu-
tive   a g encies  are  del iver ing  bette r   se r vi ce   th an   th e ir   pare nt  Dgs 
did before. they conclude contrac ts, make payments and approve 
technical and financial repor ts on the projec ts more rapidly. they 
h a v e   a l s o   i m p r o v e d   t h e   p r o c e s s e s   a n d   i n c r e a s e d   e x t e r n a l   c o m -
munication and dissemination of results, thus contributing to en-
hance the visibilit y of the eu. on the other hand, the  cour t found 
that elements of rigidity in the recruitment of staff can hinder the 
att ainm ent  of  the exp ec ted ef fic ie nc y  g ai ns.

re c o m m e n d At i o n   2

i n o rd e r to f u ll y  ev aluate th e b e n e f i t s p ro du ce d by  th e e xe cu -
t i ve   a g e n c i e s ,   t h e   co m m issi o n   s h o u l d   e nsu r e   t h at   i t   h as   r e l e -
v a n t ,   r e l i a b l e   w o r k l o a d   a n d   p r o d u c t i v i t y   d a t a   r e l a t e d   t o   t h e 
imp l e m e nt ati o n o f th e d e l e g ate d t ask s , b oth b e f o re  an d af te r 
e x te r na lis ati o n . t his is a ls o  e ss e ntial to as ce r t ain  th e  c ap a ci t y 
o f  th e e x is tin g  a g e n ci e s to co p e  w i th  a d di ti o n al t ask s . 

t h e  co m m issi o n  is  a ls o  inv i te d  to  i d e nti f y  th e   su cce ss   f a c to r s 
w hich have l e d to b e t te r result s at th e e xe cu ti ve a g e n ci e s an d 
to   a p p l y   s i m i l a r   f a c to r s   to   p r o g r a m m e s   w h i c h   co nt i n u e   to   b e 
m ana g e d in - h o us e. 

t h e  co m m issi o n  sh o u l d  re f l e c t  up o n m e asure s  to sim p li f y  th e 
re cr u i tm e nt o f th e a g e n ci e s ’ s t af f.

66.  

 the commission’s super vision of the executive agencies’ ac tivities 
i s   n o t   f u l l y   e f fe c t i ve.  th e   t i m i n g   o f   t h e   a n n u a l   wo r k   p ro gra m m e s 
does not enable the commission to make use of them to define the 
a g e n c i e s’  p r i o r i t i e s   a n d   o b j e c t i ve s.  t h e   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   h ave 
generally been assigned tasks without results- oriented and target-
ed objec tives. m onitoring, whilst mak ing use of a large number of 
indicators, is restric ted to the management ac tivities and does not 
cover the key aspects of effectiveness and efficienc y. the repor ting 
requirements do not ex tend beyond simple budgetar y data. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 
 
28

re c o m m e n d At i o n   3

t h e   a g e n c i e s   sh o u l d   b e   su p e r v is e d   m o r e   s p e c i f i c a ll y   o n   a   r e -
s u l t s   b a s i s .   t h e   t i m i n g   f o r   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   t h e   a n n u a l   w o r k 
programmes should b e made more consistent. the commission 
s h o u l d   s e t   s m a R t   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d   m o n i t o r   t h e i r   a c h i e v e m e n t 
by a limite d numb er of key p er for mance indic ator s which for m 
t h e   b as is   f o r   n e x t   ye a r s ’   o b j e c t i ve s .   t h is   is   a ls o   c r u c i a l   i n   t h e 
l o n g e r te r m f o r th e c o m missi o n’s s tr ate gic f un c ti o ns (i t s ‘co re 
business’ ), which require k nowledge of projec t implementation 
o n  th e  g ro u n d an d ev i d e n ce - b as e d re sul t s .

this rep o r t  was ado p ted by  the cour t of auditor s in luxembourg 
at it s m eet ing  o f 15 an d 16 J uly 2 0 09 .

Fo r  th e  Co u r t o f  Au dito r s

vítor m anuel da silva c aldeira 
Presi d e nt

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

29

An n e x i

d e tAi l e d   o v e r v i e w   o f   Pr oGr Am m e s   An d   b u dGe t s   mAnAGe d    
by   e x e c u t i v e   AGe n c i e s

Amount  
managed by 
the EA in the 
MFF 2007–13 
(million euro) 

690,60

375,80

181,00

0,00

450,00

Total 2007–13

1 697,40

Executive agency 

Parent DG

Programmes

Executive Agency 
Competitiveness and 
 Innovation (EACI, 
 previously IEEA) 

Education, Audiovisual 
and Culture Executive 
Agency (EACEA)

DG TREN

DG ENTR

DG ENV

DG INFSO

DG TREN

DG EAC

DG EAC

DG EAC

DG EAC

DG INFSO

DG AIDCO

DG EAC

DG AIDCO

DG RELEX

DG ELARG

DG ELARG

DG AIDCO

DG AIDCO

DG AIDCO

DG EAC

DG EAC

DG RELEX

DG ELARG

DG ELARG

DG AIDCO

DG ELARG

CIP (IEE 2007–13)

CIP (EIP)

CIP (EIP: Eco-innovation)

CIP (ICT) not managed by EACI

Marco Polo II

Lifelong learning

Youth in action

Culture 

Europe for citizens

Media 2007

Erasmus Mundus 2004–08

Erasmus Mundus 2009–13 (Actions 1 and 3)

Erasmus Mundus 2009–13 (Action 2)

Erasmus Mundus 2009–13 (Action 2)

Erasmus Mundus 2009–13 (Action 2)

Erasmus Mundus — IPA windows 2009–13

Erasmus Mundus external cooperation window Asia–Latin America 
DCI 2008

Cooperation in Central Asia and Middle Eastern countries DCI  
2007–08

European neighbourhood and partnership financial cooperation with 
Mediterranean and eastern European countries

USA–EU cooperation in higher education and vocational education 
and training 2006–13

Canada–EU cooperation in higher education and vocational education 
and training 2006–13

ICI bilateral educational projects

Erasmus Mundus Balkan window IPA 2007

Erasmus Mundus external cooperation window IPA 2008

Tempus IV action

Tempus IV action

728,66

130,13

320,88

177,18

696,97

182,34

467,01

336,00

19,00

57,00

37,50

47,82

15,39

61,99

38,53

16,50

13,67

4,00

6,00

204,20

94,50

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

 Total

3 655,27

30

Executive agency

Parent DG

Programmes

Executive Agency for 
Health and Consumers 
(EAHC, previously  PHEA) 

DG SANCO

DG SANCO

DG SANCO

Public health programme 2008–13

Consumer policy programme 2007–13

Better training for safer food initiative

Trans-European Trans-
port Network Executive 
Agency (TEN-T EA)

DG TREN

Trans-European networks — transport

 Total

DG RTD

DG ENTR

Research Executive 
Agency (REA) 

People programme (including Marie Curie fellowships) and parts of 
the Capacities programme (research for the benefit of SMEs) under 
FP7 

Cooperation programme, themes ‘Space’ and ‘Security’ (multi-partner 
projects) under FP7

FP7 support services for the four research DGs (RTD, ENTR, INFSO, 
TREN): proposal submission and evaluation, payment of experts, 
validation of legal and financial documentation submitted by 
applicants, helpdesk for enquiries about FP7

Amount  
managed by 
the EA in the 
MFF 2007–13 
(million euro) 

325,20

101,50

70,80

497,50

8 013,00

6 500,00

European Research 
Council Executive 
Agency (ERCEA) 

DG RTD

Ideas programme under FP7 2007–13

7 510,00

Total amount of programmes managed by EAs under the MFF 2007–13

27 873,17

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

31

An n e x i i

d i f f e r e n c e s   b e t w e e n   e x e c u t i v e   An d   r eGu l Ato r y   AGe n c i e s

Setting up

Legal basis

Executive agencies

Regulatory agencies

Created by the Commission under the regulatory 
procedure

Created by the Council or by the Council and the 
Parliament

Basic act of the programme  
Commission decision under Council Regulation (EC)  
No 58/2003

Regulation of the Council or regulation of the 
Parliament and the Council

Control 

Under the control of the Commission 

Under the control of a board, consisting of 
representatives of the Member States, the Commission 
and sometimes other interested parties 

Seat

Scope

Life/time

Budget

Discharge

Brussels/Luxembourg (close to Commission headquar-
ters)

Seat decided by the Council

Executive and operational tasks related to a specific 
spending programme

Limited

Fully subsidised as a part of the programme financial 
envelope

Subject to individual discharge for their administrative 
budget while the operational expenditure is part of the 
general discharge given to the Commission 

Assistance to Member States and the Commission in 
various forms (e.g. adoption of common binding rules, 
issuing of technical/scientific opinions, establishment 
of inspection reports, networking and exchange 
of information) and help in implementing Community 
regulation

In general, unlimited, but depends on the legal base

Combination of EC subsidies and self-financing

Subject to individual discharge for their own budget 
(administrative and operational expenditure)

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

32

An n e x i i i

m eAs u r e s  tAk e n   i n   r e sPe c t   o f   s i mPl i f i c At i o n ,  co m m u n i c At i o n , 
v i s i b i l i t y   An d   d i s s e m i nA t i o n   o f   r e s u lt s

EACI

EACEA

EACH

Simplification measures were taken 
on the internal side:
•	

 Centralised organisational structure 
based on the Commission standard 
Financial circuit model 4 (Full cen-
tralisation of financial transactions) 
 More streamlined and coordinated 
selection procedure bringing in 
more quality
 Creation of specific databases for 
experts, projects, and applicants 
 Detailed handbooks with clear rules 
and well explained criteria 

•	

•	

•	

Simplification measures were taken 
at various phases of the project cycle, 
such as: 
•	

 Simplification of forms, guidelines 
and selection criteria
 Reduction in the number of ap-
plication forms and of requested 
documents
 Use of declarations on honour 
instead of extensive financial 
documentation
 Use of standard grant calculation 
forms in Excel
 Introduction of multiannual calls 
and permanent programme guides 
(Youth, Citizenship, Culture)
 Extended use of decisions rather 
than bilateral grants agreements
 Gradual shift toward online applica-
tions and submission (already in use 
for Citizenship); target: extension 
to LLP in 2008 and to all EACEA 
programmes by 2009–10
 Simplification of the final reports 
and of the beneficiaries' obligations 
in the reporting phase
 Extended use of flat-rate financing 
and lump sums, mainly in Citizen-
ship and Youth areas of activity

Simplification of 
procedures

•	

•	

Simplification measures were mainly 
aimed at the final beneficiaries:
 Reduction of bank guarantees 
•	
required
 Extension of reporting period for 
technical reports
 Revision of threshold for audit 
certificates for non-public bodies
 Electronic submission of proposals
 Simplification of forms, guidelines 
and selection criteria
 Second pre-financing instead of 
interim payment based on verified 
incurred costs
 Use of flat rates
 Creation of specific databases for 
experts and projects

•	
•	

•	
•	

•	

Communication

•	

•	

•	

 Functional mailboxes to reply to 
queries
 Communication plan defining the 
activities planned during the year 
for each programme and for the 
network 
 Website, logo, poster leaflets and 
news alerts designed for each 
programme

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

 Functional mailboxes to reply to 
queries
 Publications on the website and 
in the calls for proposals of phone 
numbers to receive feedback and 
guidance 
 Cooperation with national contact 
points to provide information on the 
programmes

•	

•	

•	

•	

 Dedicated helpdesk to provide 
 guidance to potential applicants 
(250 e-mails and 80 phone calls 
in 2008)
 Cooperation with the national 
 focal points to provide information 
on the programmes
 Dedicated website to inform on the 
calls for proposals and forms to use
 Production of info-packages, CDs 
and posters

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

33

EACI

EACEA

EACH

Visibility of the 
Community as 
promoter of 
the Community 
programmes

•	
•	

•	

 More than 30 Infodays/year
 Dedicated website with about 
200 000 hits on the call for proposal 
section
 Organisation of national Infodays 
in addition to European Infodays in 
Brussels 

Dissemination of 
results

•	

•	

•	

 Publication of projects’ fact sheets 
on the website
 Publication of project brochures and 
video reports on selected subjects 
 Presentation of examples of projects 
during the Infodays

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	
•	

 16 Infodays all over Europe in 2008 
with 2 400 participants
 Dedicated website with an ever 
increasing number of hits
 23 technical meetings with 
expert groups organised in 2007 
(1 600 persons invited)
 Creation of a dedicated network 
(national focal points) to exchange 
information on the programmes

 Substantial improvement of 
feedback sent to successful and 
unsuccessful applicants 
 Guidelines for applicants 
 Guidelines for beneficiaries on how 
to prepare a final payment

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

 Several Infodays/information 
sessions/workshops organised (eg. 
Infodays for LLP, culture; media 
festivals; kick-off meetings with LLP 
project promoters, annual meetings 
of Erasmus Mundus consortia)
 Support to events organised by 
national contact points
 Dedicated website with more than 
300 000 hits in 2008

 Publication of selection results 
on the website immediately after 
selection decisions, followed by 
individual notification of results 
 Individual information on the 
reasons for non-selection
 Publication on the website of best 
practices and compendia 
 Information collected from project 
reporting used for dissemination to 
a wider public
 Involvement of the agency in the 
development of dissemination tools 
(EVE project)

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

34

Reply  of the 
commission

executive summAry

i. 
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   r e p o r t   o f 
th e c our t of a uditor s.

ii. 
ex t e r n a l i s a t i o n   w a s   p a r t   o f   a   g l o b a l   r e -
s p o n s e   t o   f a c e   t h e   c h a l l e n g e s   w h i c h   a p -
peared in the 1990s with the multiplication 
of the communit y programmes. ex ternali-
s a t i o n   i n t e n d e d   t o   r e a c h   t h e   c o n c e n t r a-
t i o n   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i ce s   o n   t h e i r 
co re   t a s k s ;   t h e   i m p rove m e nt   o f   t h e   m a n-
a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   co m m u n i t y   p ro g r a m m e s 
o f t e n   i nvo l v i n g   re c u r re n t   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve 
t a s k s   re l ate d   to   t h e   m a n a g e m e nt   o f   m u l-
t i p l e   a n d   re l at i ve l y   s m a l l   gra nt s,   a n d   t h e 
s p e c i f i c i t i e s   o f   t h e   o rg a n i s at i o n ;   a n d   t h e 
d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   s y n e r g i e s   b e t w e e n   t h e 
v a r i o u s   p r o g r a m m e s   a n d   r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n 
of th eir  manage me nt.

t h e   n e e d   t o   c r e a t e   a n   e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c y 
was clear in the areas where technical as-
sistance o ffices had to be dismantled and 
no new resources were made available by 
the Budgetar y author it y for the internali-
sat ion of th e relevant task s see po int   21 .

v.
(i) 
executive agencies are the outcome of  an 
e x te r n a l i s at i o n   p o l i c y   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n 
that  was  tr iggered  mainly  by  t wo  fac tors:  
the end of the collaboration with so-called 
technical assistance o ffices ( taos) which 
a s s i s t e d   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   i n   t h e   m a n a g e -
m e n t   o f   s o m e   c o m m u n i t y   p r o g r a m m e s ; 
a n d   t h e   n e e d   f o r   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   t o   r e -
f o c u s   o n   i t s   i n s t i t u t i o n a l   t a s k s   s u c h   a s 
 polic y-mak ing and strategic management.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

35

Reply  of the 
commission

t h e   co m m i s s i o n   h a s   s e t   u p   s i x   e xe c u t i ve 
a g e n c i e s   a n d   h a s   p e r m a n e n t l y   e n r i c h e d 
the  analysis  car r ied  out  with  previous  ex-
p e r i e n ce s.   i t   i s   a   l e a r n i n g   p ro ce s s   s h a re d 
w i t h   t h e   R e g u l a t o r y   c o m m i t t e e   f o r   e x -
e c u t i ve   ag e n c i e s   (cRe a )   a n d   t h e   B u d g e t -
a r y   a u t h o r i t y.   i t   h a s   a l w a y s   f o c u s e d   o n 
q u a n t i t a t i v e   a s p e c t s ,   s i n c e   t h e s e   w e r e 
t h e   a s p e c t s   t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt   a n d 
m ember states have insisted on the most. 
h o w e v e r,   q u a l i t a t i v e   a s p e c t s   w e r e   a l s o 
looked at. following the joint statement of 
t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt   a n d   t h e   co u n c i l 
of 13 July 2007, the commission provided, 
for subsequent creation and ex tensions of 
e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s ,   e x p l a n a t i o n s   o n   t h e 
b e n e f i t s   o f   d e l e g a t i n g   p r o g r a m m e   m a n-
agement tasks as compared to direc t man-
agement by the c ommission ser vices.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   t h e   c B a s 
have now improved as far as relevant and 
meas urable costs  are concer ned. 

(iii) 
while some benefits are difficult to quan-
t i f y,   t h e   cBa s   s h o w e d   t h e   c l e a r   p o s i t i v e 
effec t  of c reating  an exec utive  ag en c y.

i n addition, some executive agencies were 
created for programmes which were either 
c o m p l e t e l y   n e w   o r   h a d   b e e n   s u b s t a n t i a l-
l y   e x t e n d e d   i n   s c o p e   o r   f i n a n c i a l   vo l u m e. 
therefore, reference to the in-house ex ante  
situation was not available in all cases. 

aga ins t   t he  b ackdro p   o f  exp an din g   com-
m u n i t y   p ro gr a m m e s,   a n d   t a k i n g   a cco u n t 
of t he s ug g estio n of th e euro p ean  par lia-
m e n t   ( B u d g e t   c o m m i t t e e ) ,   t h e   c o m m i s -
s i o n   p r o p o s e d   t h e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k   f o r 
delegating some of its management tasks 
to exec ut ive age ncies.

t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   w a s 
s e e n   a s   k e y   f o r   m a n a g i n g   c o m m u n i t y 
p ro gra m m e s   b o t h   m o re   e f f i c i e n t l y,   i . e.   at 
lower cost by compar ison to the commis-
s i o n   a n d   m o re   e f f e c t i ve l y   t h ro u g h   a   h i g h 
d e g r e e   o f   s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   o r   t h e   r e g r o u p -
i n g   o f   s i m i l a r   p ro gr a m m e s   a n d   a c t i v i t i e s 
within one agenc y so as to achieve econo -
mies o f s cale.

i n d e e d ,   e f f i c i e n c y   g a i n s   a n d   s y n e r g i e s 
p r o v e   t h e   b e n e f i t s   o f   t h i s   fo r m   o f   e x t e r -
nalisat ion. 

(ii) 
executive agencies are set up by a decision 
of  the  commission,  with  the  assistance  of 
t h e   R e g u l a t o r y   c o m m i t t e e   f o r   ex e c u t i v e 
a g e n c i e s   a n d   i n   c l o s e   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h 
t h e   B u d g e t a r y   a u t h o r i t y.   t h e   c B a s   w e r e 
regularly examined as par t of the decision-
m a k i n g   p r o c e s s .   t h e y   r e m a i n   a   r e l e v a n t 
par t of the suppor ting documents for the 
commission, the Budgetar y authorit y and 
t h e   R e g u l a t o r y   c o m m i t t e e   f o r   exe c u t i v e 
agenc ies.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

(iv) 
t h e   t a s k s   b e i n g   d e l e g a t e d   t o   e x e c u t i v e 
a g e n c i e s   a re   c l e a r l y   d e f i n e d   i n   t h e   co m-
m i s s i o n   d e c i s i o n   d e l e g a t i n g   t h o s e   t a s k s 
a n d   re l ate   to   t h e   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   o f   p ro -
g r a m m e s .   t h i s   a l l o w s   s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   a n d 
s y n e r g i e s .   o n e   o f   t h e   m a j o r   b e n e f i t s   o f 
an exe cut ive ag enc y is th e s taff  s ele c ti on 
process, which allows for more flexible re -
cruitm ent  of s pe cial ised s taff.

(v) 
the co mmis sio n wil l  consider  h ow to  fol-
l o w   t h e   co u r t ' s   re c o m m e n d a t i o n   a i m i n g 
at a bet ter me asu rement of th e exe c ut ive 
a g e n c y ’s   m u l t i a n n u a l   p e r f o r m a n c e .   t h e 
commission sees its super vision responsi -
bility as a broader task which it fulfils with 
due diligence. the combination of regular 
for mal mee ting s and t he d etaile d repo r t-
i n g   r e q u i r e m e n t s   a l l o w   t h e   s u p e r v i s o r y 
Dgs to closely monitor the per formance of 
th e ag e nc ies.  a  revis ion  of t he number of 
indicators and the development of new in-
dicators should allow the super visor y Dgs 
to improve the per formance measurement 
of t he  agenc ie s.

t h e   a n n u a l   w o r k   p r o g r a m m e   ( aw p )   o f 
th e  exec ut ive ag enc y  is b u t o ne e lem e nt. 
R e p o r t i n g   o n   t h e   a c h i e v e m e n t s   t o w a r d s 
t h e   o b j e c t i ve s   o f   t h e   p ro gra m m e   i t s e l f   i s 
p e r f o r m e d   b y   t h e   Dg  r e s p o n s i b l e   i n   i t s 
 annual  ac t ivit y  rep or t. 

36

Reply  of the 
commission

vi.
(i) 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n t i n u o u s l y   a d j u s t s   i t s 
overall approach to ex ternalisation and its 
needs assessments. possible future ex ten-
s i o n s   o f   t h e   e x i s t i n g   e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s ' 
lifespan or tasks will provide the commis-
s i o n   w i t h   a n   o p p o r t u n i t y   t o   a s s e s s   t h e s e 
improvements in detail, drawing on  experi-
e n c e   g a i n e d   w i t h   t h e   o p e r a t i o n   o f   t h e 
age ncies.

(ii)
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   t h e   c B a s 
h a v e   c o n t i n u o u s l y   b e e n   i m p r o v e d .   c B a s 
h ave  always  h ad  an  impor tant   role   in   t he 
decision- mak ing  process   for  est abli s hi n g 
new executive agencies, or ex tending the 
man date of existing  on es.

(iii)
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t   i n i-
tial cBas and financial statements did not 
always   provide  all  pos sible  wor k lo ad  a n d 
p r o d u c t i v i t y   i n d i c a t o r s   b e f o r e   e x t e r n a l-
isat ion. 

i m p r o v e m e n t s   h a v e   b e e n   m a d e   i n   t h e 
more recent cost–benefit analysis and the 
co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   i n   t h e   f u t u re   g o   d e e p e r 
into the assessment of work load and  prod-
uc tivit y.

(iv) 
t h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h e   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s 
re s t s   o n   t h e i r   c a p a c i t y   t o   re c r u i t   f l e x i b l y 
a n d   to   t a rg e t   s p e c i f i c   s k i l l s,   a s   we l l   a s   to 
specialise on rec ur rent exe cutive t ask s. 

these advantages are inherent to the con-
cept of  t he exec utive agen c ies. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

37

Reply  of the 
commission

(v) 
th e   re v i s i o n   o f   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   i n d i c a t o r s 
a n d   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   n e w   i n d i c a t o r s 
s h o u l d   a l l o w   t h e   s u p e r v i s o r y   Dgs   t o   i m-
p r o v e   t h e   p e r f o r m a n c e   m e a s u r e m e n t   o f 
the agencies, and to improve the consist-
enc y bet ween the specific objec tives and 
indic ato rs o f t he p ro grammes and  th e re -
p o r t i n g   b y   t h e   a g e n c y   o n   t h e   r e s u l t s   o f 
i t s   w o r k   i n   t e r m s   o f   e x p e n d i t u r e - r e l a t e d 
ou tput s del ive red by s p ecific ob je c ti ve.

3 .  to  7.
executive agencies are the outcome of an 
ex ter na lisation  polic y  of  th e  commiss ion 
th at was  t r ig gere d mainly  by  t wo  fa c tor s: 
the end of the collaboration with so- called 
technical assistance o ffices ( taos) which 
a s s i s t e d   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   i n   t h e   m a n a g e -
ment of communit y programmes; and the 
need for the commission to refocus on its 
i n s t i t u t i o n a l   t a s k s   s u c h   a s   p o l i c y- m a k i n g 
an d strategic man agement.

m o r e o v e r,   f o l l o w i n g   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f 
r o l e s   b e t w e e n   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s 
and the executive agencies, the indicators 
set up by and for the agencies should pri-
marily concern the management ac tivities 
(inputs, processes, outputs, per formance) 
f o r   w h i c h   t h e y   a r e   r e s p o n s i b l e .   R e s u l t 
o r   i m p a c t   i n d i c a t o r s   o f   p r o g r a m m e s   a r e 
o n l y   t o   a   v e r y   l i m i t e d   e x t e n t   i n f l u e n c e d 
by  agenc ies.

introduction 

1. to 2. 
th e   r a t i o n a l e   b e h i n d   t h e   e x t e r n a l i s a t i o n 
t o   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   i s   t h e   n e e d   fo r   e f-
ficienc y gains and improved per for mance 
in  t he  imp leme nt ation  o f  t he  co mmun it y 
programmes, whilst preser ving within the 
c o m m i s s i o n   t h e   p o l i c y   t a s k s   a n d   e n s u r -
ing the monitoring of the operation of the 
agencies. executive agencies are a tool to 
a d d re s s   t h e   i n c re a s e d   n u m b e r   o f   n e w   o r 
re v a m p e d   p ro g r a m m e s   a n d   t h e   n e e d   fo r 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   t o   f o c u s   o n   i t s   p o l i t i c a l 
a n d   i n s t i t u t i o n a l   p r e r o g a t i v e s   a s   w e l l   a s 
th e  lac k  o f  reso u rces  w ithin  the   commis-
s i o n   t h at   h ave   t h e   s p e c i f i c   q u a l i f i c at i o n s 
necessar y for managing the programmes. 
their  o p erat ional   t as ks   are  s imp ly   exe c u-
tive a n d do  no t entail  p ol it ical  c ho ice s.

again st   t he  backdrop  of  expandin g  com-
m u n i t y   p ro gr a m m e s,   a n d   t a k i n g   a c c o u n t 
of the  sugg estion of th e european par lia-
m e n t   ( B u d g e t   c o m m i t t e e ) ,   t h e   c o m m i s-
s i o n   p r o p o s e d   t h e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k   f o r 
delegating some of its management tasks 
to  exe cutive age nc ies.

t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   w a s 
s e e n   a s   k e y   f o r   m a n a g i n g   c o m m u n i t y 
p r o g r a m m e s   b o t h   m o r e   e f f i c i e n t l y   a n d 
more  effec tively  through  a  high  degree  of 
s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   o r   t h e   re gro u p i n g   o f   s i m i-
lar programmes and ac t ivitie s w i th in  o ne 
a g e n c y   s o   a s   t o   a c h i e v e   e c o n o m i e s   o f 
s c a l e .   fu r t h e r m o r e ,   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s , 
i n   co m p a r i s o n   w i t h   t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   c a n 
d e l i v e r   t h e s e   r e s u l t s   a t   l o w e r   c o s t s .  t h i s 
i s   m a i n l y   d u e   t o   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   c o n t r a c t 
s t a f f   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   c a n   e m p l oy   a n d 
th e duration  o f  th eir  contrac ts.

8 .  to  10 . 
a l l   s i x   e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   c r e a t e d   s o   f a r 
will  have  become  operational  by   t h e  e nd 
of 2 00 9. 

the commission has decided not to create 
a ny   a d d i t i o n a l   exe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   u n l e s s 
t h e re   a re   n e w   co m m i s s i o n   co m p e te n c i e s 
u p   t o   2 0 1 3 ,   a n d   i n s t e a d   t o   m a k e   u s e   o f 
t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   to   e x te n d   t h e   m a n d a te   o f 
exist ing  agen cies.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

38

Reply  of the 
commission

12 . 
i t   i s   s p e c i f i e d   i n   co u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   ( e c ) 
no   5 8 / 2 0 0 3   t h a t   t h e   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s 
a r e   f i n a n c e d   f r o m   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   t h e y 
c o n t r i b u t e   t o   i m p l e m e n t   ( t h i s   w a s   a l s o 
th e c ase  for  t he taos) . 

ea c h   p r o g r a m m e   h a s   t w o   c o m p o n e n t s 1, 
a n   o p e r a t i o n a l   p a r t   a n d   a   p a r t   d e v o t e d 
t o   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve   a n d   t e c h n i c a l   s u p p o r t . 
B o t h   o f   t h e m   a r e   p a r t   o f   t h e   o v e r a l l   i n-
d i c a t i v e   e n v e l o p e   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e . 
t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   p a r t   c a n   f i n a n c e ,   f o r 
i n s t a n c e ,   t e c h n i c a l   a s s i s t a n c e   o r   e x e c u -
t i ve   a g e n c i e s.  th e   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   b u d g e t 
i te m   fo r   a n   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c y   i s   l i n k e d   i n 
t h e   re m a r k s   to   t h e   co r re s p o n d i n g   o p e ra -
tional budget line of the programme. the 
e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c y   h i r e s   a n d   m a n a g e s   i t s 
resources as a legal entit y separate of the 
c o m m i s s i o n .   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   p u b l i s h e s 
f u l l   i n fo r m at i o n   o n   a l l   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   ex -
p e n d i t u r e   a n d   a c c o u n t s   s p e c i f i c a l l y   f o r 
administ rat ive  exp en diture finance d out-
s i d e   h e a d i n g   5   o f   t h e   m u l t i a n n u a l   f i n a n -
cial framework in the annual statement of 
est imates 2.

the budget is approved by the budgetar y 
authority based on full k nowledge and in-
for mation, all data are available, audited, 
controlled and published thereby guaran-
teeing  fu ll  transp arenc y.

13. 
the commission receives discharge for the 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   g e n e r a l   b u d g e t , 
inclu ding   th e  o perat ional   ap p ro p r iati on s 
implem ented by the agencies.

th e  direc tor   of  e ach   agenc y  rece ives   dis-
c h a rg e   fo r   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   i t s   o p -
erat in g  budge t.

the executive agencies contribute to imple-
m e nt   t h e   p ro gra m m e   u n d e r   t h e   d i re c t   s u-
per vision of the commission in conform it y 
with c ouncil R egulation (ec ) no 58/2003.

Audit observAtions

2 1. 
t h e   r a t i o n a l e   u n d e r p i n n i n g   e x t e r n a l i s a-
t i o n   t o   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   i s   t o   a c h i e v e 
e f f i c i e n c y   a n d   m o n e t a r y   g a i n s ,   a n d   i m -
p r o v e d   p e r f o r m a n c e   i n   t h e   i m p l e m e n-
t a t i o n   o f   t h e   r e l e v a n t   c o m m u n i t y   p r o -
grammes. the delegation of management 
t a s k s   t o   e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   h a s   r e d u c e d 
costs but more impor tantly, it has signifi-
c a n t l y   i m p r o v e d   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
th e programme s con cer ned. 

i n  its ‘s c reen ing’ repor t of apr il 2 00 7,  the 
commission explicitly opted for an ex ten -
sion of the mandate of existing executive 
a g e n c i e s   t o   a d d   n e w   p r o g r a m m e s   i n   o r -
d e r   t o   a c h i e v e   s y n e r g i e s   a n d   e c o n o m i e s 
o f   s c a l e 3.   t h i s   w a s   f o r   e x a m p l e   t h e   c a s e 
f o r   t h e   e c o - i n n o v a t i o n   p a r t   o f   t h e   c o m-
p e t i t i v e n e s s   a n d   i n n o v a t i o n   f r a m e w o r k 
programm e (see B ox 1  for  f ull d etai l s) .

the financial Regulation, amended for the 
last time in 2007, specifies other possible 
fo r m s   o f   d e l e g at i o n   o f   exe c u t i ve   t a s k s   i n 
ar t icle  54 .

1  article 12(3) of council Regulation (ec) no 58/2003 states that 

3  sec(2007) 530, screening, point 2.1. : ‘…however, a limited 

‘the executive agency's revenue shall include a subsidy entered 

number of programmes might be — subject to the results of 

in the general budget of the european union, without prejudice 

cost–benefit analysis, the opinion of the Regulatory committee 

to other revenue determined by the budgetary authority, drawn 

for executive agencies and of the european parliament — 

from the financial allocation to the community programmes 

externalised to existing agencies (for instance, the consumer 

which the agency is involved in the management of’.

programme to the public health executive agency and progress, 

tempus to eacea).’

2  see statement of estimates of the European Commission for the 

financial year 2010, first part dedicated to expenditure analysis 

by multiannual financial framework headings, page 82 (of the 

en version).

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

39

Reply  of the 
commission

2 4. 
th e   co m m i s s i o n   h a s   s e t   u p   s i x   exe c u t i ve 
a g e n c i e s   a n d   h a s   p e r m a n e n t l y   e n r i c h e d 
the analysis car r ied out with previous ex -
p e r i e n ce s.   i t   i s   a   l e a r n i n g   p ro ce s s   s h a re d 
w i t h   t h e   R e g u l a t o r y   c o m m i t t e e   f o r   ex -
ec utive  age nc ies  ( R ce a)   an d  th e  Budg et-
a r y   a u t h o r i t y.   i t   h a s   a l w a y s   f o c u s e d   o n 
q u a n t i t a t i v e   a s p e c t s ,   s i n c e   t h e s e   w e r e 
th e  aspec t s  the   european  par liam ent  and 
m ember states have insisted on the most. 
ho w e v e r,   q u a l i t a t i v e   a s p e c t s   w e r e   a l s o 
l o o k e d   a t .   fo l l ow i n g   t h e   j o i n t   s t a t e m e n t 
of 13 July 2007, the commission provided, 
for subsequent creation and ex tensions of 
e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s ,   e x p l a n a t i o n s   o n   t h e 
b e n e f i t s   o f   d e l e g a t i n g   p r o g r a m m e   m a n-
agement tasks as compared to direct man-
age ment by  the  c ommiss ion ser vices.

2 5. 
th e  commiss ion   believes   that  th e  for m at 
used in the latest cBas has now improved 
a s   f a r   a s   r e l e v a n t   a n d   m e a s u r a b l e   c o s t s 
are con cer n ed. 

the costs of the additional staff needed at 
the commission to super vise the agencies 
a n d   a t   t h e   a g e n c i e s   fo r   h o r i z o n t a l   f u n c -
t i o n s   w e r e   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   cBa  o n   t h e 
p r o l o n g a t i o n   o f   t h e   m a n d a t e   o f   e a c e a 
for  the   per iod  2 00 9–1 5 . th ese  cost s  we re 
also  inc luded  in   the  subseq uent  cBas  for  
t h e   e x t e n s i o n   t o   s p e c i f i c   p r o g r a m m e s 
( tempus  and erasmus m undus 2009–13).

box 1 
t h e   cBa  f o r   t h e   m a r c o   po l o   p r o g r a m m e 
re fe r s   to   i n s u f f i c i e nt   h u m a n   re s o u rce s   i n 
the commission but equally to cost- effec -
tivene ss and  l is t s a nu mb er o f q ual it ati ve 
advantag es  su ch   as   a  high er  fl exibi l it y   i n 
s t a f f i n g,   a   b e t te r   q u a l i t y   o f   p ro j e c t   m a n-
ageme nt o r a mo re efficient  p ro j e c t man-
ageme nt c yc le. 

t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   t h e   p h e a  w a s   l i n k e d   t o 
t h e   d i s a p p e a r a n c e   o f   t h e   ta o  ( 4 5   s t a f f 
l e s s   t o   m a n a g e   a p p r o x i m a t e l y   t h e   s a m e 
n u m b e r   o f   p ro j e c t s   a n d   a   rat h e r   co m p a r-
a b l e   a m o u n t   o f   b u d g e t ) .   B u t   t h e r e   w e r e 
ot her  reaso ns.  i n  p ar tic ul ar,  as   expl ain ed 
i n   t h e   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   o f   2 0 0 4   t h e   m a i n 
objec tives   in  creat ing  t he  ph ea  were  t he 
refocu sing of  t a sks  o n p ol ic y-ma k in g an d 
s t r a t e g i c   a c t i v i t i e s ,   a s   w e l l   a s   o n   v a l o r i-
s a t i o n   o f   t h e   o u t p u t s   o f   t h e   p ro g r a m m e ; 
d e a l i n g   w i t h   a   m o r e   a m b i t i o u s   2 0 0 3 – 0 8 
‘ h e a l t h ’  p r o g r a m m e ,   w h i c h   p r o v i d e d   a 
m o r e   g l o b a l   a p p r o a c h   t o   h e a l t h   i s s u e s , 
h e n c e   n e e d i n g   s p e c i a l i s e d   s t a f f   t o   m a n -
age it; and  t he p os s ib il it y o f rec r ui ti n g in 
p h e a  e x p e r i e n ce d   a n d   s p e c i a l i s e d   f i n a n-
c i a l   a n d   t e c h n i c a l   s t a f f   ( w h i c h   w a s   b o t h 
a   c o u n c i l   a n d   e p  r e q u i r e m e n t   w h e n   n e -
gotiatin g t he p ro gramm e) in a m ore  f lex-
i b l e   e n v i r o n m e n t   ( a d a p t i n g   t o   e v o l v i n g 
needs) .

i n the case of the competitiveness and in-
novation framework programme, the com-
mission af ter having assessed the need as 
well as the possibilit y to ex ter nalise man-
agement tasks, has come to the conclusion 
t h a t   i t   w i l l   co n t i n u e   w i t h   d i re c t   m a n a g e -
ment of some par ts of the cip. the reason 
f o r   t h i s   w a s   t h a t ,   a c c o r d i n g   t o    a r t i c l e   6 
of the reg ul at io n,  execut ive age n c ie s c an 
b e   e n t r u s t e d   w i t h   a ny   t a s k ,   w i t h   t h e   e x -
c e p t i o n   o f   t a s k s   r e q u i r i n g   d i s c r e t i o n a r y 
powers. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

40

Reply  of the 
commission

26 . 
th e   s e t t i n g   u p   o f   exe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   h a s 
b e e n   a   l e a r n i n g   p r o c e s s .   w h e r e a s   s o m e 
de lays  h ave   in d ee d   o cc u r red   i n   t h e  a c tu -
a l   s e t t i n g   u p   o f   i n d i v i d u a l   a g e n c i e s ,   t h e 
overall  co ncl usio n remains  p o sit i ve,  bot h 
in  ter ms  o f  be tter  s er vice  d elive r y   and  i n 
terms of cost savings. the transition costs 
were deemed to be not significant in rela-
tion to the overall cost savings achievable 
over th e pe r iod  of t he agenc y 's   life t im e. 

i n   t h e   c a s e   o f   p h e a,   t h e   i n i t i a l   o p t i m i s-
tic forecast for the star t-up of the agenc y 
wa s m ainly  due  to  the fac t th at p hea was 
a m o n g   t h e   f i r s t   a g e n c i e s   c r e a t e d   b y   t h e 
comm issio n and therefo re no relia bl e ex-
perience on the transition deadlines were 
availa b le. 

27. 
t h e   a v e r a g e   c o s t s   u s e d   i n   c B a s   a r e   d i f -
ferentiated by categories of personnel (of-
ficials, contrac t agents, seconded national 
e x p e r t s ) .  t h e y   a re   i n d e e d   n o t   d i f fe re n t i -
ated by gra de.  ap p lyin g ave rag e cost s by 
c ate g o r i e s   o f   p e r s o n n e l   i s   t h e   m e t h o d o l-
ogy agreed with the Budget author it y for 
a ny   d o c u m e nt   i nvo l v i n g   co m m i s s i o n   h u-
man  res ou rce s.

2 8. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t   i n i-
tial cBas and financial statements did not 
always  provide   all  poss ible   wor k l oad   and 
p ro d u c t i v i t y   i n d i c a t o r s   b e fo re   e x t e r n a l i-
sat ion.  i mprovements  h ave been made  in 
t h e   m o r e   r e c e n t   cBa s ,   a n d   t h e   c o m m i s-
sion will in the future continue to improve 
th ese  ele ment s of th e cBa s. 

as regards ex post evaluation  council Reg-
u l at i o n   (e c )   no   5 8 / 2 0 0 3   fo re s e e s   e va l u a-
tion s ever y  thre e  ye ars. 

2 9. 
t h e   m e t h o d o l o g y   u s e d   f o r   c o s t - b e n e f i t 
analyses has been fur ther developed over 
t h e   y e a r s ,   b a s e d   o n   e x p e r i e n c e   g a i n e d 
w i t h   t h i s   e x e r c i s e .   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   b e -
l i e ve s   t h a t   t h e   cBa s   h a ve   n o w   i m p r o ve d 
a s   f a r   a s   r e l e v a n t   a n d   m e a s u r a b l e   c o s t s 
are con cer ne d.

3 0. 
th e   co s t– b e n e f i t   a n a l ys e s   h ave   i n fo r m e d 
t h e   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p r o c e s s ,   a s   f o r e -
s e e n   i n   a r t i c l e   3   o f   c o u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n 
(ec ) no  58/2003, and brought added value 
i n   o rd e r   to   fo r m   a n   o p i n i o n   a b o u t   d i f fe r-
ent alter n atives.

gi ve n   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   m o b i l i t y,   i t   i s   d e b at -
able that using actual costs by grade would 
have given a more reliable projec tion.

however  cBa s are only one element in the 
p ro ce s s   o f   d e c i d i n g   w h e t h e r   to   e s t a b l i s h 
exec utive agen cies.

3 1. 
t h e   m i x   o f   p e r s o n n e l   c o n s i d e r e d   f o r   a n 
 exe c u t i ve   a g e n c y   ( 2 5  %   te m p o ra r y   a g e nt s 
and a maximum of 75 % external personnel) 
i s   d i f f e r e n t   f r o m   t h e   c u r r e n t   m i x   o f   p e r -
sonnel in the commission ser vices. one of 
the major benefits of an executive agenc y 
is definitely the recruitment of specialised 
s t a f f.  th i s   i s   a   d i re c t   co n s e q u e n ce   o f   t h e 
staff selection process, which is more flex-
i b l e   a n d   a m e n a b l e   t o   h i g h l y   s p e c i a l i s e d 
profiles than that used by the commission 
for offic ials.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

41

Reply  of the 
commission

i t   i s   t r u e   t h a t   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   a l l o c a-
tion of staff is not available by programme 
b u t   by   p o l i c y   a re a   o r   t i t l e   o f   t h e   b u d g e t , 
i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   t h e   a p p l i c a b l e   a c t i v -
it y based  budgeting (aBB)  n omenclature, 
which imposes that all administrative ap -
p r o p r i a t i o n s   b e   v o t e d   u n d e r   ch a p t e r   0 1 
o f   e a c h   t i t l e   o f   t h e   b u d g e t .  th e   co m m i s-
s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   o p i n i o n   t h at   t h i s   d e gre e   o f 
detail already imposes enough constraints 
o n   t h e   vo te   o f   t h e   b u d g e t   a n d   i t s   i m p l e -
mentation. fur th er more, th e commiss ion 
must un der lin e that  the split  of wor k lo ad 
bet ween polic y and implementation tasks 
is of te n diff icult to ass es s in ter ms  of  h u-
m a n   re s o u rce s   a s   t h e   s a m e   p e r s o n n e l   o f-
t e n   c a r r y   o u t   b o t h   f u n c t i o n s   fo r   o bv i o u s 
r e a s o n s   o f   s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   a n d   e f f i c i e n c y, 
especially under a constraint of stable hu-
man  resources.

4 1. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h i s   f i n d i n g , 
whic h   confir ms   th e  ben ef its   of  ex ter n ali-
sat ion towards exec ut ive agen c ie s.

4 6. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   o v e r   t h e   l a s t   f e w   y e a r s 
h a s   c h o s e n   to   e x te n d   t h e   s co p e   o f   e x i s t -
i n g   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s   i n   o r d e r   t o   c o ve r 
n e w   o r   a d d i t i o n a l   p r o g r a m m e s   t o   r e a p 
s y n e r g i e s   i n   t e r m s   o f   e x p e r t i s e   a n d   r e -
duced over h ead costs. 

4 7. 
the staff Regulations impose stric t condi -
tion s  on   t he  commiss ion ,  wh ich   may  em-
ploy  contra c t ag ent s ( except  fo r  fun c ti on  
g r o u p   i )   f o r   a   m a x i m u m   d u r a t i o n   o f 
three  years only. these restric tions do not 
 apply  to executive agen cie s. 

33 . 
t h e   a v e r a g e   c o s t s   u s e d   i n   c B a s   a r e   d i f -
ferentiated by categories of personnel (of-
ficials, contrac t agents, seconded national 
e x p e r t s ) .  t h e y   a re   i n d e e d   n o t   d i f fe re n t i -
ated by gra de.  ap p lyin g ave rag e costs  by 
c ate g o r i e s   o f   p e r s o n n e l   i s   t h e   m e t h o d o l-
ogy agreed with the Budget author it y for 
a ny   d o c u m e nt   i nvo l v i n g   co m m i s s i o n   h u-
man  res ou rce s.

gi ve n   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   m o b i l i t y,   i t   i s   d e b at -
able that using actual costs by grade would 
have given a more reliable projec tion.

34 . 
w h i l e   i n i t i a l   cBa s   d i d   n o t   t a k e   i n t o   a c -
count t he addit ion al  cos t s o f s uper vis or y 
f u n c t i o n s   p e r f o r m e d   i n   t h e   p a r e n t   Dgs , 
these additional costs have more recently 
been taken into account in the legislative 
finan cial   statement s   related  to   t h e   lates t 
c r e a t i o n s   a n d   e x t e n s i o n s   o f   e x e c u t i v e 
agencies 4.

37. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t   i n i-
tial cBa s and financial statements did not 
a l ways   p rov i d e   a l l   p o s s i b l e   wo r k l o a d   a n d 
p r o d u c t i v i t y   i n d i c a t o r s   b e f o r e   e x t e r n a l -
isation. i mprovements have been made in 
the more recent cBa s, and the commission 
w i l l   i n   t h e   f u t u r e   g o   d e e p e r   i n t o   t h e   a s-
sessment of wor k load and produc tivit y.

4  see for example: the supervisory functions executed by 

the parent Dg have been included in the ‘interim evaluation 

of eacea’ (chapter on cost–benefit analysis). their level 

of significance is low (a total of 4,5 fte covering the three 

parents Dgs of eacea), against the total eacea staffing of 

approximately 400 persons). 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

a s   a   r e s u l t   t h e r e o f ,   a   c o m m i s s i o n   ' i n -
h o u s e '   s o l u t i o n   f o r   t h e   i m p l e m e n a t i o n 
o f   p ro g r a m m e s   wo u l d   h ave   re s u l t e d   i n   a 
h i g h   t u r n o v e r   o f   c o n t r a c t   a g e n t s   e n t a i l-
ing a considerable loss of k nowledge and 
lesser q ual it y  and p er for mance.

48. 
D e l ays   i n   re c r u i t m e n t   o f   co n t r a c t   a g e n t s 
a r e   d u e   t o   t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   t h i s   c a t e g o r y 
of  st aff   as  o f  1  m ay  2004,   p rec isely  at  th e 
time wh en t he fir st exec ut ive ag e n c y wa s 
create d.

t h e s e   d e l a y s   w e r e   a l s o   e n c o u n t e r e d   b y 
commission ser vices. there is no par ticu-
lar  addit ion al  del ay  fro m  t he  p e rs pec t ive 
o f   e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   ( o t h e r   t h a n   t h o s e 
re l a t i n g   t o   i n e v i t a b l e   d e l a y s   w h e n   f a c e d 
w i t h   m a s s i v e   r e c r u i t m e n t   a t   s t a r t - u p 
phase).

49. 
with regard to the duration of filling spe -
cific  po st s,   th e  co mmis sio n  would  like  to 
re c a l l   t h at   t h e re   a re   o n l y   a   fe w   d i re c to r s’ 
posts and recruitment of senior managers 
is a del icate p ro cess.

50. 
the att rac tive nes s of temp orar y  a nd  con-
trac t  p os ts  in  t he  exec ut ive  age nc ie s   l i es 
n o t   o n l y   i n   t h e   r e c r u i t m e n t   g r a d e s   b u t 
a l s o   i n   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   c a re e r   d e ve l o p -
ment (i.e. obtaining a permanent contrac t 
and  be ing  u pgraded ). 

42

Reply  of the 
commission

Differences in the grade of recruitment of 
s t a f f   b e t w e e n   c o m m i s s i o n   a n d   a g e n c i e s 
a l s o   r e f l e c t   d i f f e r e n c e s   i n   t h e   n a t u r e   o f 
th eir  task s. 

5 1. 
exe c u t i ve s   a g e n c i e s   re c r u i t   e m p l o y m e n t 
agenc y staff (intérimaires) to face peaks in 
work load and to replace temporar y or ex-
te r n a l   p e r s o n n e l   d u r i n g   a   l i m i te d   p e r i o d 
(e.g. mater nit y leave). i n past years, some 
agencies had to recruit more employment 
agenc y staff than planned, while awaiting 
th e availabit y of lists  of laureate s.

5 2. 
th e   t a s k s   o f   a n   exe c u t i ve   a g e n c y   a re   d e -
f i n e d   i n   t h e   d e c i s i o n   o f   d e l e g at i o n .  th e y 
a r e   m o s t l y   ' m u l t i a n n u a l '   a n d   r e c u r r e n t . 
t h e   t a s k s ,   w h i c h   a r e   e l a b o r a t e d   i n   m o r e 
detail in the annual work programmes, are 
all related to the multiannual programme 
man agem ent  c ycle.

5 4. 
Bearing in mind the legal obligations set up 
by Regulation (ec ) no 58/2003, a pragmatic 
approach has been implemented to reduce 
t h e   t i m e   l a g   b e t we e n   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   t h e 
commission  ser vices'  annual  management 
plan s   a n d   t h e   exe c u t i ve   a g e n cies'  annual 
wor k  programmes.  now  that  the  executive 
agencies have reached full operational  cap-
a c i t y,   i t   i s   e x p e c te d   t h at   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f 
t h e   aw ps   w i l l   i n t e r v e n e   m u c h   e a r l i e r   i n 
th e yea r.

as regards the past, delays in the adoption 
of the awp occurred mainly during the first 
ye a r s   o f   t h e   a g e n c i e s,   a n d   we re   l i n k e d   to 
their star t-up phases or ex tensions. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

43

Reply  of the 
commission

5 6. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   i n   t h e   p r o c e s s   o f   i m-
proving the executive agenc y indicators. a 
work ing group was established in autumn 
2008 to reflect on how the consistenc y can 
be  improved  bet wee n  th e  spe ci fi c   obje c -
tives and indicators of the programmes as 
d e f i n e d   i n   t h e   a n n u a l   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n 
of the parent Dg and the repor ting by the 
agenc y on the results of its wor k in ter ms 
of  expen diture -related   outputs  de livered 
by  specific  obj ec tive. 

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   i n-
d i c a t o r s   s h o u l d   b e   s e l e c t e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s 
o f   t h e i r   r e l e v a n c e   a n d   p e r t i n e n c e   t o   t h e 
work of the agencies and that they should 
remain stable over time, which pleads for 
a reduc tion in the overall number of indi-
c ator s ret ained.

5 7. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   i t   i s   a p -
propr iate  that  indic ator s  us ed  a re   m os tl y 
related to the  m anagement ac tiv i ti es.

fo l l o w i n g   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   r o l e s   b e -
t w e e n   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   a n d   t h e 
e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s ,   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d 
th e  evaluation  of  th e  programm es '  e f fe c -
tiveness and efficienc y remain the respon-
sibilit y  of t he c ommiss ion  ser vices.

5 8. 
t h e   s t r u c t u r e   o f   t h e   a g e n c i e s '   a aR   c o r -
responds to the standards and guidelines 
l a i d   d o w n   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w h i c h   a r e 
t h e   ' s t a n d i n g   i n s t r u c t i o n s '   a l s o   f o r   t h e 
parent Dgs. 

h o w e v e r,   t h e   l a c k   o f   a   f o r m a l   a d o p t i o n 
does n ot  me an  that there h as  b e en  a l ack 
o f   g u i d a n c e   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g   o f   a g e n c y 
per formance, as the draft documents have 
b e e n   e x a m i n e d   b y   t h e   s t e e r i n g   co m m i t -
tee. therefore, progress can be monitored 
and  co nt inu it y is  ensu red. 

for the eaci, the timing of the final adop -
t i o n   o f   t h e   aw p  i n   2 0 0 8   w a s   d u e   t o   s p e -
c i a l   c i r c u m s t a n c e s :   t h e   e x t e n s i o n   o f   t h e 
a g e n c y ' s   a c t i v i t i e s   f o l l o w i n g   t h e   t r a n s-
fo r m a t i o n   o f   t h e   i e e a  i n t o   t h e   e ac i.   t h e 
f i r s t   d r a f t   o f   t h e   aw p   i s   p re p a re d   w i t h i n 
t h e   e a c i  a n d   p r e s e n t e d   t o   t h e   s t e e r i n g 
c o m m i t t e e   d u r i n g   t h e   t h i r d   q u a r t e r   o f 
y e a r   n   –   1 ,   a s   w a s   t h e   c a s e   f o r   t h e   2 0 0 9 
awp, which was adopted in the first half of 
m arch 2009. for the eacea, the 2006  awp 
wa s endo rs ed by  the stee r ing  commit tee 
of eac ea o n 22  f eb ru ar y 2 00 6. 

55 . 
t h e   t a s k s   a n d   t a r g e t s   o f   t h e   a g e n c i e s ’ 
awps, in fac t, 'mirror' the commission de -
cision delegating the tasks to the agenc y. 
t h e s e   a r e   t h e   a c t u a l   ' e xe c u t i v e '   t a s k s   o f 
a n   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c y ,   a s   m e n t i o n e d   i n 
a r t  i c l e   6 ( 2 )   o f   c o u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   ( e c ) 
no 58/2003. these should be distinguished 
from the objectives, targets and indicators 
of t he c o mm unit y p ro gram mes.

t h e   a m p  g u i d e l i n e s   f o r   2 0 1 0   w i l l   b e 
a d a p t e d   a c c o r d i n g l y   i n   o r d e r   t o   b e t t e r 
reflec t  the  different  roles   and  to   de fi ne   a 
har mo nised  content  for the  t wo  m an ag e -
ment  inst ru ments. 

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

44

Reply  of the 
commission

t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   w a s 
s e e n   a s   k e y   f o r   m a n a g i n g   c o m m u n i t y 
p ro gra m m e s   b o t h   m o re   e f f i c i e n t l y,   i . e.   at 
lower costs by comparison to the commis-
sion ,  a nd  more  ef f ec tively  th roug h  a  hig h 
d e g r e e   o f   s p e c i a l i s a t i o n   o r   t h e   r e g r o u p -
i n g   o f   s i m i l a r   p ro gr a m m e s   a n d   a c t i v i t i e s 
within one agenc y so as to achieve econo -
mies  of  scale. 

6 3. 
th e   co m m i s s i o n   h a s   s e t   u p   s i x   exe c u t i ve 
a g e n c i e s   a n d   h a s   p e r m a n e n t l y   e n r i c h e d 
t h e   a n a l y s i s   c a r r i e d   o u t   w i t h   p r e v i o u s 
e x p e r i e n c e s .   i t   h a s   a l w a y s   f o c u s e d   o n 
q u a n t i t a t i v e   a s p e c t s ,   s i n c e   t h e s e   w e r e 
th e  aspec t s  the   european  par liam ent  and 
m ember states have insisted on the most. 
ho w e v e r,   q u a l i t a t i v e   a s p e c t s   w e r e   a l s o 
looked   at  as  t he  cBa s  h ave  grad ually  be -
come m ore compreh en sive. 

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   t h e   c B a s 
have now improved as far as relevant and 
meas urable costs  are concer ned.

th e   co s t– b e n e f i t   a n a l ys e s   h ave   i n fo r m e d 
t h e   i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g 
process, as foreseen in council Regulation 
( e c )   n o   5 8 / 2 0 0 3 ,   a r t i c l e   3 ) ,   a n d   b ro u g h t 
a d d e d   v a l u e   i n   o rd e r   t o   fo r m   a n   o p i n i o n 
about different alte r n atives.

reco mmend at ion  1
th e   co m m i s s i o n   co nt i n u o u s l y   a d j u s t s   i t s 
overall approach to externalisation and its 
needs assessments. possible future ex ten-
s i o n s   o f   t h e   e x i s t i n g   e xe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s ' 
lifespan or tasks will provide the commis-
s i o n   w i t h   a n   o p p o r t u n i t y   to   a s s e s s   t h e s e 
improvements in  de tail. 

59 . 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e e s   i t s   s u p e r v i s i o n   r e -
s p o n s i b i l i t y   a s   a   b r o a d e r   t a s k   w h i c h   i t 
f u l f i l s   w i t h   d u e   d i l i g e n c e .  t h e   c o m b i n a-
t i o n   o f   r e g u l a r   f o r m a l   m e e t i n g s   a n d   t h e 
detailed repor ting requirements allow the 
s u p e r v i s o r y   Dgs   t o   c l o s e l y   m o n i t o r   t h e 
per formance of the agencies. a revision of 
the number of indicators and the develop -
m e n t   o f   n e w   i n d i c a t o r s   s h o u l d   a l l ow   t h e 
super v iso r y  Dgs   to  im prove  the  p er for m-
ance  measu rement o f the agenc i es.

60. 
a s   s t a t e d   u n d e r   5 9 .   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s 
s u p e r v i s i n g   t h e   a g e n c i e s   t h r o u g h   a   v a-
r i e t y   o f   f o r m a l   m e c h a n i s m s ,   i n c l u d i n g 
f o r m a l   r e p o r t i n g   r e q u i r e m e n t s   p u r s u a n t 
to   a r t i c l e   9 ( 7 )   o f   co u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   (e c ) 
no  5 8 / 2 0 0 3 ,   a n d   i t s   d a y - t o - d a y   c o n t a c t s 
with the agencies.

conclusions And  
recommendAtions

61 . to 62. 
executive agencies are the outcome of an 
ex ter nal isat io n  p o l ic y  of  th e  co mmiss ion 
th at was t r ig gered mainl y by t wo  fa c tor s: 
the end of the collaboration with so- called 
technical assistance o ffices ( taos) which 
a s s i s t e d   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   i n   t h e   m a n a g e -
ment of communit y programmes; and the 
need for the commission to refocus on its 
i n s t i t u t i o n a l   t a s k s   s u c h   a s   p o l i c y- m a k i n g 
an d strategic managem ent.

aga ins t   t he  b ackdro p   o f  exp an din g   com-
m u n i t y   p ro gr a m m e s,   a n d   t a k i n g   a c c o u n t 
of t he s ug g estio n of th e euro p ean  par lia-
m e n t   ( B u d g e t   c o m m i t t e e ) ,   t h e   c o m m i s -
s i o n   p r o p o s e d   t h e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k   f o r 
delegating some of its management tasks 
to exec ut ive age ncies.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

45

Reply  of the 
commission

the success of the executive agencies lies 
o n :   t h e i r   c a p a c i t y   t o   r e c r u i t   e x t e n s i v e l y 
contrac tual  ag ents   (up  to  75 %)   wi th   con-
trac ts of much longer duration than in the 
commission; to target their recruitment to 
spec ific sk ills ; and to s pec ialis e on  rec u r-
rent executive tasks. these advantages are 
i n h e re n t   to   t h e   co n ce p t   o f   t h e   e xe c u t i ve 
age ncies  and  c an  therefore  n ot  be   repro -
duced within the commission. firstly, the 
c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   t o   m a i n t a i n   t h e   o v e r a l l 
c u r r e n t   b a l a n c e   o f   s t a f f   w h i c h   i n c l u d e s 
p r e d o m i n a n t l y   p e r m a n e n t   o f f i c i a l s   a n d 
m a y   o n l y   e m p l o y   c o n t r a c t u a l   a g e n t s   f o r 
a   m a x i m u m   o f   t h r e e   y e a r s .   s e c o n d l y,   i n 
o rd e r   fo r   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   to   fo c u s   o n   i t s 
s t r a t e g i c   a n d   p o l i c y   t a s k s   a s   a n   i n s t i t u-
t i o n ,   i t   m u s t   h i r e   a   h i g h   n u m b e r   o f   g e n-
eralists. 

a s   re g a rd s   re c r u i t m e n t   o f   c o n t r a c t   s t a f f, 
t h e   s e l e c t i o n   m e c h a n i s m   w i t h   e p s o   h a s 
generally worked to the satisfaction of the 
agencies, and the proposed refor m of the 
process in the epso development plan will 
s h o r te n   t h e   d e l ays   e ve n   f u r t h e r.   is o l ate d 
difficulties may be the case for specialised 
staff with an academic background which 
is n ot readily  available on  th e li st s. 

for  temporar y   st aff  re cr uited  o ut sid e  th e 
co m m i s s i o n ,   p ro c e d u re s   fo r   re c r u i t m e n t 
m ay   i n d e e d   b e   t i m e - co n s u m i n g,   b u t   t h i s 
c o u l d   b e   i m p r o v e d   t h r o u g h   s t r i c t e r   e l i -
g i b i l i t y   a n d   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   s e t   b y   t h e 
age nc ies th emselves.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   d e c i d e d   n o t   t o   c r e a t e 
new  ag encies  u nder  the  c ur rent   fi n anc i a l 
f ra m e wo r k   a n d   to   o n l y   e x te r n a l i s e   a   l i m-
i t e d   n u m b e r   o f   p r o g r a m m e s   t o   e x i s t i n g 
exe c u t i ve   a g e n c i e s,   u n l e s s   t h e re   a re   n e w 
c o m p e t e n c i e s   a t t r i b u e d   t o   t h e   c o m m i s-
sion.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   t h e   c B a s 
h a v e   c o n t i n u o u s l y   b e e n   i m p r o v e d   a n d 
n o w   i n c l u d e   r e l e v a n t   a n d   m e a s u r a b l e 
c o s t s.   cBa s   h a ve   a l w a y s   b e e n   t a k e n   i n t o 
account in the interinstitutional decision-
mak in g p ro cess.

65. 
the commission welcomes this core find-
i n g   o f   t h e   re p o r t   a b o u t   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   i n 
t e r m s   o f   c o s t s   a n d   d e l i v e r y   o f   t h e   p r o -
g r a m m e   b ro u g h t   a b o u t   b y   t h e   e xe c u t i ve 
agencies. 

t h e   r e c r u i t m e n t   p r o c e s s   i s   g o v e r n e d   b y 
t h e   s t a f f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( e . g .   t r a n s p a r e n c y, 
publicit y and equ al  treatment).

recom m endat ion 2
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t   i n i-
tial cBa s and financial statements did not 
a l ways   p rov i d e   a l l   p o s s i b l e   wo r k l o a d   a n d 
p r o d u c t i v i t y   i n d i c a t o r s   b e fo r e   e x t e r n a l i-
s at i o n .   i m p rove m e nt s   h ave   b e e n   m a d e   i n 
the more recent cBa s, and the commission 
w i l l   i n   t h e   f u t u r e   g o   d e e p e r   i n t o   t h e   a s-
sessment of wor k load and produc tivit y.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

46

Reply  of the 
commission

Result or impact indicators of programmes 
a r e   o n l y   t o   a   v e r y   l i m i t e d   e x t e n t   i n f l u -
e n c e d   b y   a g e n c i e s .   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d 
th e  evaluation  of  th e  programm es '  e f fe c -
tiveness and efficienc y remains a respon-
sibility of the commission. the parent Dgs 
design the programmes, the agencies im-
plement t hem.

th e   re v i s i o n   o f   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   i n d i c a t o r s 
a n d   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   n e w   i n d i c a t o r s 
s h o u l d   a l l o w   t h e   s u p e r v i s o r y   Dgs   t o   i m-
p r o v e   t h e   p e r f o r m a n c e   m e a s u r e m e n t   o f 
the agencies, and to improve the consist-
enc y bet ween the specific objec tives and 
in dicators  of t he programmes an d t he  re -
p o r t i n g   b y   t h e   a g e n c y   o n   t h e   r e s u l t s   o f 
i t s   w o r k   i n   t e r m s   o f   e x p e n d i t u r e - r e l a t e d 
outputs delivered by  s pec ific  obj ec t ive.

66 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e e s   i t s   s u p e r v i s i o n   r e -
s p o n s i b i l i t y   a s   a   b r o a d e r   t a s k   w h i c h   i t 
f u l f i l s   w i t h   d u e   d i l i g e n c e .  t h e   c o m b i n a-
t i o n   o f   r e g u l a r   f o r m a l   m e e t i n g s   a n d   t h e 
detailed repor ting requirements allow the 
s u p e r v i s o r y   Dgs   t o   c l o s e l y   m o n i t o r   t h e 
per formance of the agencies. a revision of 
the number of indicators and the develop -
m e n t   o f   n e w   i n d i c a t o r s   s h o u l d   a l l ow   t h e 
super v iso r y  Dgs   to  im prove  the  p er for m-
ance  measu rement o f the agenc i es.

recom m endat ion 3
a  p r a g m a t i c   a p p r o a c h   w i l l   b e   s o u g h t   i n 
o r d e r   t o   s p e e d   u p   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   t h e 
e x e c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s '   a n n u a l   w o r k   p r o -
gramm es  th ro ug h  ear l ier  ad op ti on   of   t h e 
Dgs '   f i n a n c i n g   d e c i s i o n s   w h i c h   c o n t a i n 
the annual programmes of grants and pro-
c u r e m e n t s   o f   t h e   Dg.  t h i s   s h o u l d   a l l o w 
m o r e   t i m e   f o r   t h e   e xe c u t i v e   a g e n c i e s   t o 
e l a b o rate   t h e i r   a n n u a l   wo r k   p ro gra m m e s 
w h i c h   a r e   i n t r i n s i c a l l y   l i n k e d   w i t h   t h e 
Dg's finan cing dec isio ns. 

fo l l o w i n g   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   r o l e s   b e -
t w e e n   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   a n d   t h e 
exe cut i ve  a g enc i e s,   th e   i nd i c ato r s  s et  u p 
by   a n d   fo r   t h e   a g e n c i e s   s h o u l d   p r i m a r i l y 
c o n c e r n   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   a c t i v i t i e s   ( i n -
p u t s ,   p r o c e s s e s ,   o u t p u t s ,   p e r f o r m a n c e ) 
for whic h the y are resp o ns ib l e.

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

european court of auditors

special report no 13/2009

delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

luxembourg: publications office of the european union

2009 — 46 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

isBn 978-92-9207-477-7

doi:10.2865/85634

special Report no 13/2009 — Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?

How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

•	

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

from	your	bookseller	by	quoting	the	title,	publisher	and/or	ISBN	number;

	by	contacting	one	of	our	sales	agents	directly.	You	can	obtain	their	contact		details	on	the	Internet	
(http://bookshop.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax		to	+352	2929-42758.

Free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	at	the	European	Commission’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	
on	the	Internet	(http://ec.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax	to	+352	2929-42758.

ExECutivE AgEnCiEs ArE Community BoDiEs EstABlishED By thE 

EuropEAn Commission in orDEr to implEmEnt,  By DElEgA tion, 

All or pArt of Eu  spEnDing progr AmmEs. thE y ArE  A rElA tivEly 

nE w phEnomEnon in thE  EuropEAn institutionAl lAnDsCApE . 

thE  AuDit  AssEssED  whE thEr thE  six ExECutivE  AgEnCiEs whiCh 

hAvE BEEn CrEAtED sinCE 2003 hAD provEn to BE A suCCEssful 

instrumEnt for implEmEnting thE  EuropEAn  BuDgE t. 

thE   rEp o r t  AnAlysEs  t hE   D E Ci s i o n - m Ak i n g   p r oC Es s  f o r 

CrEAting thE AgEnCiEs AnD thE BEnEfits AChiEvED in tErms 

of Cost sAvings, sErviCE  DElivEry  AnD  EffiCiEnC y gAins.  thE  

Commission’s supErvision of thE  AgEnCiEs’  ACtivitiEs is  Also 

Ex AminED.

EuropEAn  Court of AuDitors

Q
J
-
A
B
-
0
9
-
0
1
3
-
E
n

-
C

EuropEAn   
Court of AuDitors

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
n
s
s

i

9
0
0
2

3
1
o
n

t
r
o
p
e
r

l

a
i
c
e
p
s

DElEgAting implEmEnting 

tAsks to  ExECutivE AgEnCiEs :

A suCCEssful option?

En