Skip to content

Text · Opinion parliamentary committee

On discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor for the financial year 2024

Document LIBE-AD-778330 · 2025/2154(DEC)

Kind
Opinion parliamentary committee LIBE-AD-778330
Date
5 December 2025
Committee
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur
Evin Incir
More facts (3)
Subject matter
BUDG
Reference
2025/2154(DEC)
More

In short

A summary of the text written by AI; ¶ opens the paragraph it rests on.

AI: In short Written by AI from the official text — check the source · deepseek-v4-flash · 4 Sept 2026

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs gives its opinion on the discharge for the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for 2024, noting budget and performance, and urging improvements in complaint handling, transparency, and mission cost reporting.

Key points

  1. Notes the 2024 EDPS operating budget was EUR 24 329 460, up 7% from 2023, with a 96% implementation rate of commitment appropriations.
  2. Emphasizes that new tasks under the Artificial Intelligence Act and other legislation require adequate resources for the EDPS to fulfil its obligations.
  3. Expresses concern about the time taken to handle complaints, citing the European Ombudsman's finding of maladministration in a case taking six years.
  4. Welcomes the 33% increase in admissible complaint cases finalised in 2024, but calls for better transparency and data on complaint handling, and for KPIs to include targets.
  5. Welcomes the decrease in staff missions and costs, but urges the EDPS to improve transparency on missions funded by third parties.
  6. Notes the EDPS concluded one investigation, issued 25 opinions, and carried out three audits in 2024, and urges a clear distinction between audits and visits in KPIs.

Who is affected

  • The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and its staff, who are subject to calls for improved transparency and performance.
  • EU institutions, bodies, and agencies, whose personal data processing is supervised by the EDPS.
  • Complainants to the EDPS, who may benefit from faster and more transparent complaint handling.

Figures and deadlines

  • EUR 24 329 460: the 2024 EDPS operating budget.
  • 7%: increase in the budget compared to 2023.
  • 96%: implementation rate of commitment appropriations in 2024.
  • 77: admissible complaint cases finalised in 2024.
  • 33%: increase in finalised complaints compared to 2023.
  • 246 to 218: staff missions in 2023 and 2024.
  • 25 opinions issued in 2024, down from 54 in 2023.
  • Three audits in 2024, down from five in 2023.

Read the text · Report a problem

Text

The text as parsed from the official Word file. Every paragraph has a link (¶) and can be saved to a project as a passage.

Opinion

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following into its motion for a resolution:

1.Notes that the 2024 European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) operating budget amounted to EUR 24 329 460, reflecting an increase of 7% compared to the final budget for 2023; welcomes that, in 2024, the implementation rate of the commitment appropriations by the EDPS was 96%;

2.Notes the increased role of the EDPS in multiple new legislative acts, including the Artificial Intelligence Act, under which EDPS becomes the competent authority for the Union institutions, agencies, offices and bodies, where the EDPS has been delegated further tasks; emphasizes that these additional responsibilities, delegated by the co-legislators, require adequate resources to ensure the EDPS can effectively fulfil its obligations;

3.Emphasises the role of the EDPS in supervising the personal data processing operations of European Union institutions, bodies, and agencies (EUIBA); expresses concern about the time it takes the EDPS to handle complaints; recalls the European Ombudsman’s Decision of 7 November 2024 in case 1888/2023/TM, in which the EO found that six years for the EDPS to complete its assessment of a complaint does not constitute a reasonable timeframe and that the EDPS’s approach constituted maladministration; notes that the Ombudsman found that the EDPS also failed to keep the complainant informed on the progress of the case;

4.Welcomes that in 2024, the EDPS finalised 77 admissible complaint cases, which represents an increase of 33% compared to 2023; notes that it is not clear when these complaints were submitted, therefore calls on the EDPS to improve procedural transparency and to publish data on the number of admissible complaints received each year, average time taken to investigate and resolve them, and reasons for significant delays; urges the EDPS to reflect on its KPIs and ensure that they cover complaint handling as well as set targets for handling complaints and inquiries, similarly to the practice of the European Ombudsman;

5.Welcomes the decrease in EDPS staff mission costs and the number of staff missions from 246 in 2023 to 218 in 2024; calls on the EDPS to keep assessing whether the resources spent on missions are being used appropriately and contribute to protection of personal data in EUIBA; notes that in 2024 the EDPS engaged in a number of events, including commercial events and that in line with EDPS speaking engagement policy, the EDPS “would normally expect the organisers to cover the cost of travel and accommodation”; expresses concern regarding the fact that the EDPS still does not provide information about the number of missions funded by organisers or other third parties, thus reducing transparency regarding EDPS mission expenses; strongly urges EDPS to improve its policies and practises regarding transparency of mission expenses;

6.Notes that in 2024, the EDPS concluded a single investigation, in comparison to no investigations concluded in 2023, issued 25 opinions, a decrease in comparison to 54 opinions issued in 2023 and carried out three audits, a drop in comparison to five audits in 2023; urges the EDPS, to make a clear distinction between actual audits and visits in its KPI.

Back matter, 2

Parts that accompany the text rather than belong to it: explanatory statement, annexes, opinions appended by other committees. Collapsed.

Annex: declaration of input 3 blocks

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for opinion declares that she included in her opinion input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that she received, in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

Table from the text: 1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the
1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register
Transparency International EU / EU transparency register: 501222919-71

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for opinion.

Information on adoption by the committee asked for opinion 1 block
Table from the text: Date adopted
Date adopted3.12.2025
Result of final vote+: –: 0:64 5 3
Members present for the final voteMagdalena Adamowicz, Abir Al-Sahlani, Giuseppe Antoci, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Pernando Barrena Arza, Nikola Bartůšek, François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Saskia Bricmont, Jaroslav Bžoch, Damien Carême, Susanna Ceccardi, Caterina Chinnici, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Alessandro Ciriani, Lena Düpont, Marieke Ehlers, Estrella Galán, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Paolo Inselvini, Irena Joveva, Erik Kaliňák, Marina Kaljurand, Mariusz Kamiński, Fabienne Keller, Mary Khan, Alice Kuhnke, Murielle Laurent, Fabrice Leggeri, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Michael McNamara, Ana Catarina Mendes, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Matjaž Nemec, Ana Miguel Pedro, Ilaria Salis, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Petra Steger, Cecilia Strada, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Kristian Vigenin, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, Alessandro Zan, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
Substitutes present for the final voteKatarina Barley, Anna Maria Cisint, Markéta Gregorová, Monika Hohlmeier, Nikola Minchev, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Leoluca Orlando, Oliver Schenk, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alexandre Varaut, Maciej Wąsik
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final voteStefano Cavedagna, José Cepeda, Pietro Fiocchi, Andrey Kovatchev, Marcos Ros Sempere, Michał Szczerba, Catarina Vieira

Procedure pages and committee votes

How the committees handled the text and how their members voted on it. Collapsed.

Final vote by roll call by the committee asked for opinion 3 blocks

64 · For

ECR
Stefano Cavedagna, Alessandro Ciriani, Pietro Fiocchi, Paolo Inselvini, Mariusz Kamiński
EPP
Magdalena Adamowicz, François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Caterina Chinnici, Lena Düpont, Monika Hohlmeier, Andrey Kovatchev, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Ana Miguel Pedro, Oliver Schenk, Michał Szczerba, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
Patriots
Nikola Bartůšek, Jaroslav Bžoch, Susanna Ceccardi, Anna Maria Cisint, Marieke Ehlers, Fabrice Leggeri, Petra Steger, Tom Vandendriessche, Alexandre Varaut
Renew
Abir Al-Sahlani, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Irena Joveva, Fabienne Keller, Michael McNamara, Nikola Minchev, Jan-Christoph Oetjen
S&D
Katarina Barley, José Cepeda, Marina Kaljurand, Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Matjaž Nemec, Marcos Ros Sempere, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Cecilia Strada, Alessandro Zan
The Left
Pernando Barrena Arza, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Ilaria Salis
Greens
Jaume Asens Llodrà, Saskia Bricmont, Markéta Gregorová, Alice Kuhnke, Leoluca Orlando, Catarina Vieira

5 · Against

ESN
Mary Khan, Milan Uhrík, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik
No group
Erik Kaliňák
S&D
Kristian Vigenin

3 · Abstained

ECR
Sebastian Tynkkynen, Maciej Wąsik
The Left
Giuseppe Antoci

Connections

The dossier, the decisions on this text and its other versions.

No connections found for this item.

Sources & citation

Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.

Data source
Licensed CC BY 4.0.
Retrieved
25 September 2026

Cite as

European Parliament (2025). “OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor for the financial year 2024”. Text, 5 December 2025. docId LIBE-AD-778330. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/LIBE-AD-778330 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: EP Open Data API: document record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/documents/LIBE-AD-778330 (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-libe-ad-778330,
  author = {{European Parliament}},
  title = {{OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor for the financial year 2024}},
  year = {2025},
  date = {2025-12-05},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/LIBE-AD-778330}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/LIBE-AD-778330},
  urldate = {2026-09-25},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Text. docId LIBE-AD-778330. Data: EP Open Data API: document record (CC BY 4.0)}
}