—

having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (1),

—

having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 473 – C7-0264/2011) (2),

—

having regard to the annual report of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,

—

having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the 2010 financial year pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0093/2012),

1.

Notes that, in its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors made the following observation: ‘While the specialised nature of the functions performed by the [European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)’s] Office may justify the organisation of an internal competition [organised in the legal, technological, human resources and secretarial assistance fields in 2009], this policy should not be considered as the norm. Best practice is to use the services of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), which organises open competitions on a regular basis.’ (Paragraph 7.32);

2.

Is satisfied that in 2009-2010 the EDPS, in close cooperation with EPSO, organised an open competition concerning data protection in order to recruit highly specialised staff;

3.

Welcomes the fact that, on the basis of its audit work, the Court concludes that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31 December 2010 for administrative and other expenditure of the Institutions and bodies were free from material error; notes that the most likely error estimated by the Court for ‘administrative expenditure’ in general is 0,4 % (paragraphs 7.9, 7.10 and 7.32);

4.

Recalls that, in relation to the 2009 financial year, the Court of Auditors called on the EDPS to ask his staff to deliver at regular intervals documents certifying their personal situation; notes that in the meantime the EDPS has corrected the errors observed in connection with the statement of assurance for 2009 in 2010 and 2011, and has established tools which make it possible to improve the management of allowances; stresses that the Court of Auditors will monitor progress in its 2011 annual report;

5.

Notes that in 2010 the EDPS had a total of EUR 7 104 351 in commitment appropriations (EUR 7 000 000 in 2009), and that the implementation rate of those appropriations was 82,73 % (81,44 % in 2009); stresses that the budget of the EDPS is purely administrative, the breakdown of expenditure being 65 % on persons working with the institution (Title 1) and 35 % on buildings, furniture, equipment and miscellaneous operating expenditure (Title 2);

6.

Calls on the EDPS to draft annual budgets which correspond to his needs (only 75 % of Title 1 appropriations were utilised in 2010) and implement the budget better (paragraph 7.35);

7.

Notes with satisfaction that the recommendations made in the reports of the Court of Auditors and the Commission concerning the 2009 financial year were acted upon as follows:

8.

Notes the far-reaching change made to the organisation of the staff in 2010 and asks to be informed of the results of the new establishment plan; would appreciate it, in this context, if the EDPS also included in his annual activity report information on the action taken on Parliament’s recommendations;

9.

Notes that the establishment of a secure electronic case management system constitutes progress; wishes to be informed of developments in the next annual activity report;

10.

Notes that the EDPS intends to establish a system to define key performance indicators in the management plan for 2012 and a scoreboard which will make it possible to measure the service’s efforts by means of a benchmarking system; stresses that that plan will be assessed as part of the 2012 annual activity report;

11.

Notes that the annual activity report for 2011 will include a chapter on the action taken in response to Parliament’s discharge resolution;

12.

Would like the annual activity report for 2011 also to include an exhaustive table of all the human resources at the EDPS’s disposal, broken down by category, grade, sex, participation in professional training and nationality.