The European Parliament granted discharge to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for the execution of its 2024 budget. This decision means that the accounts of this independent authority are approved and its financial management is validated. Parliament also adopted a resolution of observations which forms an integral part of the decision. The text is final and will be published in the Official Journal.
Each year, the European Parliament examines how the institutions and bodies of the Union have spent public money. For the 2024 financial year, it looked at the budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor, the independent authority responsible for ensuring respect for privacy and personal data in the European institutions. The Court of Auditors provided its annual report and its statement of assurance on the reliability of the accounts. On this basis, Parliament decided to approve the EDPS budget management for 2024, while formulating observations in an accompanying resolution.
Discharge granted for 2024Parliament approves the execution of the 2024 budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor.
Observations integrated into the decisionA resolution containing Parliament's observations forms an integral part of the discharge decision.
Official transmissionThe President of Parliament transmits the decision and the resolution to the EDPS, the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European External Action Service.
Publication in the Official JournalThe decision and the resolution are published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L series.
Parliament adopted the discharge by 528 votes in favour, 59 against and 62 abstentions, in an electronic roll-call vote.
This decision closes the annual examination of the accounts of the European Data Protection Supervisor for 2024. In practice, the expenditure of this independent authority is deemed compliant and regular. However, in its resolution, Parliament calls for greater transparency and performance-driven budget management. For citizens, this means that the body responsible for protecting their personal data within the European institutions has had its management validated, without this vote creating any new rules on data protection.
The European Parliament has granted discharge to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for the execution of its 2024 budget, by 528 votes in favour, 59 against and 62 abstentions. This vote concludes the annual examination of the accounts of the independent authority responsible for protecting personal data within the European institutions. But behind the formal approval, the Parliament's resolution of observations outlines a demand for transparency and performance-oriented management that deserves to be taken seriously.
Discharge is an act of democratic scrutiny: Parliament approves the accounts of an institution or body and, in doing so, validates its financial management. For the EDPS, this validation comes without major reservation, which is consistent with the role of guardian of personal data that the authority exercises within the Union. However, the accompanying resolution is not limited to endorsing the accounts: it calls for strengthening democratic legitimacy through transparency, accountability and performance-based budgeting. These requirements, although not legally binding, set a course for future financial years.
The massive vote in favour of discharge (528 for) contrasts with the 59 votes against and 62 abstentions. Without the breakdown by group being provided, this dispersion signals that some elected representatives consider the transparency efforts or the justification of expenditure insufficient. Parliament does not refuse discharge, but it sends a signal: the authority will have to demonstrate that it spends every euro efficiently and that it accounts for its choices.
It must be emphasised: this vote does not in any way alter the data protection framework. No new obligation, no additional rule is created. Parliament rules on the regularity of expenditure, not on the merits of policies. For citizens, this means that the body responsible for safeguarding the protection of their data has had its management validated, but that the guarantees surrounding the use of that data remain unchanged. The resolution does indeed mention a digital environment that is not controlled by opaque interests, but this is a political statement, with no direct legal effect.
From a budgetary accountability perspective, one may regret that the discharge is not accompanied by more precise performance requirements. A more demanding approach could have conditioned part of the discharge on the publication of outcome indicators, or on a detailed justification of communication expenditure. Parliament confines itself to general observations, leaving the EDPS to define its own priorities. This is a missed opportunity to link public money to measurable results.
A discharge granted without reservation is a blank cheque that only continuous vigilance can turn into a guarantee of sound management.
The European Parliament has granted discharge to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for the execution of its 2024 budget, by 528 votes in favour, 59 against and 62 abstentions. This vote concludes the annual examination of the accounts of the independent authority responsible for protecting personal data within the European institutions. But behind the formal approval, the Parliament's resolution of observations outlines a demand for transparency and performance-oriented management that deserves to be taken seriously.
Discharge is an act of democratic scrutiny: Parliament approves the accounts of an institution or body and, in doing so, validates its financial management. For the EDPS, this validation comes without major reservation, which is consistent with the role of guardian of personal data that the authority exercises within the Union. However, the accompanying resolution is not limited to endorsing the accounts: it calls for strengthening democratic legitimacy through transparency, accountability and performance-based budgeting. These requirements, although not legally binding, set a course for future financial years.
The massive vote in favour of discharge (528 for) contrasts with the 59 votes against and 62 abstentions. Without the breakdown by group being provided, this dispersion signals that some elected representatives consider the transparency efforts or the justification of expenditure insufficient. Parliament does not refuse discharge, but it sends a signal: the authority will have to demonstrate that it spends every euro efficiently and that it accounts for its choices.
It must be emphasised: this vote does not in any way alter the data protection framework. No new obligation, no additional rule is created. Parliament rules on the regularity of expenditure, not on the merits of policies. For citizens, this means that the body responsible for safeguarding the protection of their data has had its management validated, but that the guarantees surrounding the use of that data remain unchanged. The resolution does indeed mention a digital environment that is not controlled by opaque interests, but this is a political statement, with no direct legal effect.
From a budgetary accountability perspective, one may regret that the discharge is not accompanied by more precise performance requirements. A more demanding approach could have conditioned part of the discharge on the publication of outcome indicators, or on a detailed justification of communication expenditure. Parliament confines itself to general observations, leaving the EDPS to define its own priorities. This is a missed opportunity to link public money to measurable results.
A discharge granted without reservation is a blank cheque that only continuous vigilance can turn into a guarantee of sound management.
