What changed

12. Calls on the Commission to significantly strengthen the transparency of the expert evaluation process and to consider appropriate mechanisms aimed at increasing the accountability of experts, while fully respecting their independence;

24.25. Notes that the budget of 33 EU agencies rose from EUR 3,6 billion in 2023 to 4,1 billion in 2024; calls on the Commission to analyse five-year cumulative costs, distinguishing mandate-driven growth from administrative expansion, and to justify further increases with demonstrable added value; emphasises that budget growth must be matched by stronger governance, internal controls, staffing and absorption planning to avoid irregularities, carryovers, and ineffective spending; stresses that any additional resources for agencies must be accompanied by measurable performance targets and regular reporting on the concrete outcomes achieved, so that the discharge authority can assess value for money; insists that before additional funding is approved, agencies must first demonstrate that existing resources are being deployed efficiently;

34.35. Calls for an increase in Eurojust’s staffing levels in light of its foreseen enhanced mandate to include third countries ,countries, particularly following the 2022 Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which enables it to gather, store, and analyse evidence of core international crimes (war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity), share such evidence with national authorities and international bodies including the International Criminal Court, and create a dedicated Core International Crimes Evidence Database for this purpose, thereby moving beyond merely supporting investigations to actively safeguarding essential evidence for future investigation, while noting that the 2024 budget only reflected a modest percentage increase compared to the 2023 budget, and urges that personnel funding be raised accordingly along with the overall budget in view of the expected future mandate;

78.79. Highlights that internal mechanisms should be developed within the agencies to ensure both the proper internal handling of complaints and the prevention of incidents, including cases of psychological and sexual harassment, particularly when multiple parties are involved;

95.96. Notes that Cedefop has been involved in a legal dispute with a former staff member whose contract was not renewed in 2017; recalls that, in 2020, the General Court of the European Union annulled Cedefop’s decision and ordered the payment of financial compensation, which was implemented by Cedefop; notes that a subsequent action brought by the former staff member concerning the implementation of that judgment was dismissed by the General Court of the European Union in February 2024; observes that the former staff member has appealed that judgment to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-209/24 P) and that the final judgment isof stillthe pending;Court of Justice of the European Union has set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 February 2024 (T-563/22), annulled the decision of the Executive Director of Cedefop of 17 December 2021 and the decision of its Appeals Committee of 17 June 2022, ordered Cedefop to pay €15 000 to the applicant as compensation for non-material damage, and to bear all costs incurred by the applicant both at first instance and on appeal; recalls that the initial judgment of the General Court of the European Union found breaches of fundamental procedural guarantees, including the right to be heard, the rights of the defence, the duty of care and the principle of good administration; underlinesnotes with concern that followingno thedisciplinary non-complianceprocedure ofagainst the former executive director withor theother coderesponsible members of conductstaff andappears withto thehave administrativebeen andinitiated proceduralfollowing provisionsthose findings; criticises the managementexcessive boardlength refusedof the decision-making process also due to renewan error on the contractpart withof the director;General criticisesCourt thebased excessiveon lengthinformation offrom the decision-makingagency; process,stresses that the excessivenon-material costsdamage ofis thedirectly legalattributable procedureto andCedefop’s thefailure legalto advisorsproperly andcomply with the factannulment thatjudgment thebeyond casemere remainspayment pending;of urgescompensation, and that staff-relateda decisionscausal belink takenbetween inCedefop’s aunlawful transparentconduct and traceablethe manner;damage callshas ontherefore thebeen Commissionestablished; andstresses that Cedefop must now re-examine the agenciescontract torenewal establishrequest, mechanismsreconduct grantingthe agenciesprocedure greaterfrom flexibilitythe tosituation addressas andit resolvestood staff-relatedin disputes2017 atand anadopt earlya stage,decision includingreplacing throughthe amicableannulled settlementsdecision; wherethis appropriate,re-examination inshould orderbe todone avoidfollowing lengthythe andrelevant costlyprocedure litigation;as furtherlaid callsout onin the CommissionStaff Regulations and the EUinternal Agencieshiring Networkrules toof createCedefop aincluding sharedpotential legalnecessary servicecompensation; forurges agenciesthat dedicatedstaff-related todecisions handlingmust thebe agencies’taken legalin affairsa transparent and providingtraceable timelymanner, legalbased guidance;on all the rules enshrined in the Staff Regulations in a timely manner;

(iv) urges Cedefop to adopt a replacement decision that fully implements the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 March 2026, in compliance with the Staff Regulations, relevant internal procedures and rules, and with the rights of a staff member applying for a renewal of their contract; stresses the urgent need to avoid further proceedings and additional financial costs for the Agency; calls on Cedefop to put forward an action plan that would include: (i) how the procedure for the decision following the situation as it stood in 2017 will be implemented including a time line; (ii) how Cedefop intends to make sure that the rules of the Staff Regulations, internal procedures, and all the rights of a staff member are followed; (iii) what kind of compensation will be paid and for what reasons; (iv) what kind of changes Cedefop has implemented or plans to improve the procedures when hiring or prolonging staff; (v) to outline all kind of costs incurred during the whole legal dispute since 2017 and to report back to the discharge authority on the progress of the implementation by the beginning of September;

(v) strengthen their staffing policies in order to reduce excessive reliance on interim staff, temporary workers and trainees, in particular for core and continuous functions; stresses that structurally precarious staffing arrangements can increase workload pressures, weaken supervision and training, and are not conducive to healthy, safe and stable working conditions; calls on the agencies to ensure that permanent needs are primarily met through adequately trained statutory staff, to provide longer term and more stable employment perspectives where appropriate, and to ensure that trainees are not used to compensate for structural staff shortages or to perform core functions;

(iii) the EIT to update the Discharge Authority on the implementation of OLAF’s recommendations and strengthened control mechanisms to avoid recurrence in the future; to continue strengthening its cybersecurity governance in full compliance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2023/2841, to further enhance internal cyber-resilience capabilities; to establish a policy on access to documents to enable parliamentary and public scrutiny of the use of Union funds, particularly with regard to the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs);

(iv) the CdT to continue to improve the accessibility of documents in all the languages of the Union in order to ensure equal access for all Union citizens;