—

having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009 (1),

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2009 (SEC(2010) 963 — C7-0219/2010) (2),

—

having regard to the European Data Protection Supervisor’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2009,

—

having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2009, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

—

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

—

having regard to Article 272(10) and Articles 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty and 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 (A7-0117/2011),

1.

Notes that in 2009 the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) had commitment appropriations available amounting to a total of EUR 7 000 000 (2008: EUR 5 300 000 (6), with a utilisation rate of 81,44 %, below the average of the other institutions (97,69 %);

2.

Notes that in the course of preparation of the annual report concerning the financial year 2009, the Court of Auditors performed an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the EDPS which included the examination of an additional sample of transactions involving payments relating to human resources and to other administrative expenditure;

3.

Notes that the Court of Auditors found that, in four cases out of ten, the information available to the EDPS was not sufficiently up-to-date to ensure that allowances provided for by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (7) were paid to staff in compliance with relevant Community regulations and national legislation. The Court of Auditors found that this could entail a risk of incorrect or undue payments;

4.

Endorses the suggestion of the Court of Auditors that EDPS staff should be requested to submit at appropriate intervals documents proving their personal situation, and that the EDPS should improve its system for the timely monitoring and control of those documents;

5.

Takes note of the EDPS’s reply to the effect that because of its small size, it is assisted by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) in handling the social allowances files, that the information relating to family and dependent child allowances is updated by the PMO once a year on the basis of specific forms addressed to the staff concerned through the EDPS, and that the social allowances are kept up-to-date on the basis of the information gathered through these forms. Welcomes the EDPS’s intention to improve the monitoring of information relevant to the social allowances in view of the recommendation of the Court of Auditors, and invites the EDPS to report on the action taken in its Annual Activity Report;

6.

Notes the Court of Auditors’ findings that the EDPS had not put in place a system of ex-post verification, where appropriate, as required by the Financial Regulation, and that the standards of internal control adopted by the EDPS did not provide for exceptions to standard financial procedures to be duly recorded in a central register;

7.

Notes the EDPS’s reply to the effect that the transactions carried out by the EDPS, including the reimbursement of direct payments processed by other institutions on behalf of the EDPS, are already subject to an ex-ante control; welcomes the EDPS’s intention to examine how to implement an ex-post verification process for the year 2011 onwards in view of the recommendation of the Court of Auditors, and invites the EDPS to report on the action taken in its Annual Activity Report;

8.

Accepts and understands the EDPS standpoint concerning its small size and the particularity of shared file handling under cooperation and service-level agreements; however, asks the EDPS to clarify what further interinstitutional assistance would be necessary to enable the EDPS to fulfil the recommendation of the Court of Auditors, and to indicate when that could be accomplished; welcomes the EDPS’s decision to implement the observation of the Court of Auditors on internal control standards by creating a central list of recorded exceptions, and invites the EDPS to report on the progress achieved in its Annual Activity Report;

9.

Notes that the Court of Auditors indicated in its annual report that the audit did not give rise to any further significant observations as regards the EDPS;

10.

Notes that, due to the limited size of the EDPS, it cooperates administratively with a number of other institutions, in particular with the Commission services (ADMIN, BUDG, EAC, IAS), the Publications Office, Parliament’s services (buildings and infrastructure, security, IT, printshop, communications, etc.), as well as the Council’s translation service; commends the EDPS for the successful consolidation of administrative cooperation;

11.

Recalls that on the basis of the Administrative Cooperation Agreement between the Secretaries-General of the Commission, Parliament and the Council, signed together with the EDPS on 7 December 2006 for a further period of three years with effect from 16 January 2007, the administrative handling of all EDPS missions is ensured by the Paymaster’s Office of the Commission, and that the evaluation (effectively performed by the Commission’s Internal Auditor, acting as EDPS Internal Audit Service on the basis of the Administrative Cooperation Agreement) had stated that the functionality and efficiency of the internal control system was adequate and that it provided reasonable assurance for the achievement of the EDPS’s objectives;

12.

Welcomes the annual publication of declarations of financial interests of the elected Members of the institution (EDPS and Assistant Supervisor), containing relevant information on remunerated posts or activities and declarable professional activities;

13.

Requests that the EDPS include in its next Annual Activity Report (financial year 2010) a chapter providing an account of the follow-up during the year to Parliament’s discharge decisions.