The European Parliament granted discharge to the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee for the implementation of the Committee's 2024 budget. Discharge is the final validation of an institution's accounts by Parliament. It is accompanied by a resolution containing the Members' observations, which forms an integral part of the decision. The text was adopted by 478 votes in favour, 146 against and 27 abstentions.
Each year, the European Parliament examines the accounts of the Union's institutions and decides whether or not to grant them discharge, that is, to validate the way public money has been spent. The European Economic and Social Committee is a consultative body that represents organised civil society (employers, trade unions, associations) and issues opinions on European legislative proposals. For the 2024 financial year, Parliament had to rule on the Committee's budgetary management, after taking note of the Court of Auditors' report and the Committee's annual report on its internal audits.
Discharge granted for 2024Parliament validates the implementation of the European Economic and Social Committee's 2024 budget and grants discharge to its Secretary-General.
Observations in a resolutionThe Members' remarks on the Committee's management are set out in a resolution that forms an integral part of the discharge decision.
Official transmissionThe President of Parliament must forward the decision and the resolution to the Committee, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors.
Publication in the Official JournalThe decision and the resolution will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L series.
Parliament adopted the discharge by 478 votes in favour, 146 against and 27 abstentions, in an electronic roll-call vote.
This decision closes the 2024 discharge procedure for the European Economic and Social Committee. In practice, the accounts of this consultative body are validated and Parliament's observations are forwarded to the other institutions. For citizens, this means that the management of the European funds allocated to the Committee for 2024 has been scrutinised and approved by their representatives in the European Parliament. The Committee will continue to issue opinions on the Union's policies, but its 2024 budgetary management is now considered sound.
The European Parliament has granted discharge to the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee for the implementation of the 2024 budget, by 478 votes in favour, 146 against and 27 abstentions. Discharge validates an institution's accounts, but it says nothing about its usefulness. Yet the EESC is a consultative body whose cost is real and whose legislative output is indirect: its opinions bind no one. Today's vote is an accounting compliance check, not an assessment of the effectiveness of the spending.
Discharge is the act by which Parliament, on the basis of the Court of Auditors' report, approves an institution's budgetary management. It does not judge the political merits of the body's existence, nor the cost-effectiveness of its opinions. The EESC spent its 2024 budget in accordance with the rules: that is what the vote records. But a budget executed without irregularity is not necessarily a useful budget. The question Parliament should have asked is simple: how much does an EESC opinion cost, and what is its measurable effect on European legislation?
The EESC is made up of representatives of employers, trade unions and associations. It issues mandatory opinions in certain areas and own-initiative opinions. Yet these opinions do not bind the co-legislators. Their real influence is difficult to establish, and the Committee itself does not produce impact indicators. The 2024 discharge would have been the opportunity to demand an independent assessment of the usefulness of each opinion, or even to make part of the budget conditional on result indicators. Parliament did not do so.
The EESC is consulted on a mandatory basis on many texts, which means the Commission and the Council must wait for its opinion before adopting certain decisions. This delay has a cost: it slows the adoption of rules, it ties up officials, and it can be used to dilute or block liberal reforms. The recitals of the text recall that the Committee contributes to participatory democracy, but participation has a price. For businesses, every week of delay in adopting a regulatory simplification represents a loss of earnings. The EESC is not responsible for this delay, but its existence contributes to it.
The discharge does not call into question the EESC's consultative role, which is provided for by the treaties. But it could have been the opportunity to call for a reduction in the administrative burden, for example by limiting own-initiative opinions or merging certain consultations. Parliament preferred to validate without condition. It is a missed opportunity to lower the cost of the European machine.
Validating the accounts is not assessing usefulness: the EESC is discharged, not justified.
The European Parliament has granted discharge to the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee for the implementation of the 2024 budget, by 478 votes in favour, 146 against and 27 abstentions. Discharge validates an institution's accounts, but it says nothing about its usefulness. Yet the EESC is a consultative body whose cost is real and whose legislative output is indirect: its opinions bind no one. Today's vote is an accounting compliance check, not an assessment of the effectiveness of the spending.
Discharge is the act by which Parliament, on the basis of the Court of Auditors' report, approves an institution's budgetary management. It does not judge the political merits of the body's existence, nor the cost-effectiveness of its opinions. The EESC spent its 2024 budget in accordance with the rules: that is what the vote records. But a budget executed without irregularity is not necessarily a useful budget. The question Parliament should have asked is simple: how much does an EESC opinion cost, and what is its measurable effect on European legislation?
The EESC is made up of representatives of employers, trade unions and associations. It issues mandatory opinions in certain areas and own-initiative opinions. Yet these opinions do not bind the co-legislators. Their real influence is difficult to establish, and the Committee itself does not produce impact indicators. The 2024 discharge would have been the opportunity to demand an independent assessment of the usefulness of each opinion, or even to make part of the budget conditional on result indicators. Parliament did not do so.
The EESC is consulted on a mandatory basis on many texts, which means the Commission and the Council must wait for its opinion before adopting certain decisions. This delay has a cost: it slows the adoption of rules, it ties up officials, and it can be used to dilute or block liberal reforms. The recitals of the text recall that the Committee contributes to participatory democracy, but participation has a price. For businesses, every week of delay in adopting a regulatory simplification represents a loss of earnings. The EESC is not responsible for this delay, but its existence contributes to it.
The discharge does not call into question the EESC's consultative role, which is provided for by the treaties. But it could have been the opportunity to call for a reduction in the administrative burden, for example by limiting own-initiative opinions or merging certain consultations. Parliament preferred to validate without condition. It is a missed opportunity to lower the cost of the European machine.
Validating the accounts is not assessing usefulness: the EESC is discharged, not justified.
