Legislative Observatory
European Parliament
Please fill in this field to find a procedure

2006 discharge : European Police College CEPOL

2007/2063(DEC)

The European Parliament adopted, by 599 votes in favour, 17 against and 38 abstentions, a Decision to grant the Director of the European Police College (CEPOL) discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2006. The decision to grant discharge also constitutes closure of the accounts of this EU agency.

At the same time, the Parliament adopted by 593 votes in favour, 18 against and 34 abstentions, a Resolution containing the comments which form part of the decision giving discharge. The report had been tabled for plenary by Hans-Peter MARTIN (NI, AT) on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control.

As is the case for all EU agencies, Parliament's Resolution is divided into two parts: part one contains general comments on EU agencies, while part two focuses on the specific case of the College.

1) General comments on the majority of EU agencies: the Parliament notes that the budgets of the 24 agencies and other satellite bodies audited by the Court of Auditors totalled more than EUR 1 billion and that the number of agencies is constantly increasing. The number of agencies subject to the discharge procedure evolved from 8 in 2000 to 20 in 2006. It concludes therefore that the auditing/discharge process has become cumbersome and disproportionate compared to the relative size of the agencies and that, in the future, this type of procedure should be simplified and rationalised for decentralised agencies.

On the basis of the financial analysis, the Parliament is of the following opinion:

  • Fundamental considerations: given the constantly increasing number of agencies, the Parliament requests that, before the creation of a new agency, the Commission provide clear explanations regarding agency type, objectives of the agency, internal governance structure, products, services, clients and stakeholders of the agency, formal relationship with external actors, budget responsibility, financial planning, and personnel and staffing policy. It also requests that each agency be governed by a yearly performance agreement which should contain the main objectives for the coming year and that the performance of the agencies be regularly audited by the Court of Auditors (and extend the financial analysis of expenditure to also cover administrative efficiency and effectiveness). More generally, the Parliament takes the view that, in the case of agencies, which are continually overestimating their respective budget needs, technical abatement should be made on the basis of vacant posts in order to reduce the assigned revenue for the agencies and therefore also lower administrative costs of the EU. It recalls that it is a serious problem that a number of agencies is criticised for not following rules on public procurement, the Financial Regulation, the Staff Regulations etc., and considers that the principal reason for this is that most regulations and the Financial Regulation are designed for bigger institutions rather than for small agencies. Therefore, it is necessary to seek a rapid solution in order to enhance the effectiveness of the legislation by grouping the administrative functions of various agencies together or by establishing implementing rules which are better adapted to the agencies. The Parliament also insists that the Commission, when drafting the Preliminary Draft Budget, take into consideration the results of budget implementation by the individual agencies in former years and revise the budget requested by the particular agency accordingly. If the Commission does not undertake this revision, the Parliament invites the competent committee to revise, itself, the budget in question to a realistic level. At the same time, the Parliament recalls that it expects the Commission to present every five years a study on the added value of every existing agency and to not hesitate to close an agency if it is deemed useless by the analysis. Such an assessment is expected as soon as possible given that this type of assessment has yet to be presented. Furthermore, the Parliament insists that recommendations of the Court of Auditors should be promptly implemented and the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be aligned with their real cash requirements.
  • Presentation of reporting data: noting that there is no standard approach among the agencies with regard to the presentation of information, the Parliament recalls that it already invited the directors of the agencies to accompany their annual activity report with a declaration of assurance concerning the legality and regularity of operations, similar to the declarations signed by the Directors General of the Commission. It therefore asks the Commission to amend its standing instructions to the agencies and to produce a harmonised model for presenting information, including: i) an annual report intended for a general readership on the body's operations, work and achievements; ii) financial statements and a report on implementation of the agency’s budget; iii) an activity report of the Directors of the agency (as requested by the Parliament since 2005); iv) a declaration of assurance signed by the body's director.
  • General findings by the Court of Auditors: the Parliament refers to certain recurring findings by the Court, including the disbursement of subsidies paid by the Commission (not sufficiently justified estimates of the agencies' cash requirements), the non implementation of the ABAC accounting system by some agencies or the accrued charges for untaken leave which are accounted for by some agencies. It calls for rapid measures in these areas as well as improvements to the internal audit procedures of the agencies. The Parliament also calls on the agencies to consider an inter-agency disciplinary board, as some individual agencies have difficulty in setting up their own disciplinary boards due to their size.
  • Draft inter-institutional agreement: the Parliament recalls the Commission's draft Interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies (see ACI/2005/2035), which was intended to create a framework for the creation, structure, operation, evaluation and control of the European regulatory agencies, and awaits its adoption as soon as possible. It particularly welcomes the Commission's commitment to bring forward a Communication on the future of the regulatory agencies during the course of 2008.

2. Specific points concerning the European Police College: the Parliament notes that the Court of Auditors qualified its declaration of assurance as regards the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions of the College, on the grounds that the system of procurement did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation, there was no documentation available to justify the need to purchase particular items and a similar issue arose with removal costs for staff. In particular, the Parliament regrets that the College did not manage to prepare a financial report in the same way as the other agencies. It therefore calls on the College to adopt detailed implementing rules (including in terms of procurement procedures) and to significantly improve control over its budgetary implementation.

The Parliament also expresses concern at the fact that, as regards courses and seminars (an overall amount of EUR 1.3 million in 2006), budget appropriations were not used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.

While taking note of the justifications made by the College (including that it was difficult for this new Community body to instantly respect the principles of the Financial Regulation and that, from now on, the control systems should be put in place), the Parliament calls on the College to ensure by June 2008 at the latest, that its financial management fully respects the provisions of the Financial Regulation and asks that the Commission closely supervise the implementation of the College's budget.

Lastly, the Parliament regrets that this College, although now an EU agency, still retains, according to its annual report, some characteristics of an inter-governmental body (e.g. the rotating presidency of the governing board).