The newly renovated office building will provide the EPO not only with a new base of operations, but also with a large conference and training room in the heart of Budapest. The terms of the agreement mean that Budapest will be the EPO`s home country for at least 10 years. Following the European Parliament`s vote of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2005/681/JHA establishing the European Police College (CEPOL), the transfer of the headquarters from Bramshill to Budapest and the vote of the Council of Ministers on 6 May 2014, also in favour of the amendment, the EPO and the Hungarian authorities completed the formalities and signed yesterday, at a small official ceremony in Budapest, the new agreement on the epo`s seat. A new standard defined by the Common Approach It is in this context that the Common Approach (CA), which devotes an entire page to the issue of the “seat of agencies and the role of the host country”, should be understood. The Common Approach contains a number of principles, without “calling into question the political decision on the seat of an Agency, which by common accord is taken between the representatives of the Member States meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government or of the Council” (see more below). The main principles of the AC are that (i) the decision on the seat of the Agency should be taken at the same time as the decision on the establishment of the Agency (and not years later, as was the case, for example, for the EEA); (ii) objective criteria should be used which may include the accessibility of the site, proximity to appropriate educational institutions and adequate access to the labour market for the spouses of officials. (iii) all agencies should have co-signatory agreements with their host Member States. The decision taken in 2004 by the representatives of the Member States meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government to `give priority to acceding States once they have joined the Union also shows that the seat of a new Agency was not chosen on the basis of the proper functioning of the Agency itself, but that this election was mainly marked by political considerations, in the distribution of seats in other offices or agencies to be established in the future. So the main idea seemed to be that every EU member state should have an EU agency, instead of each EU agency being placed in such a way that it could carry out its tasks properly. (8) Hungary shall cooperate with the Agency to set up schools for the children of the Director and statutory staff of the Agency, similar to the European Schools established at other headquarters of the institutions and bodies of the European Union. Increasing pressure on the Council`s haggling with the headquarters of EU agencies This approach has come under increasing pressure, with some agencies subsequently set up in places so isolated or inaccessible that they thwarted the work of the agency concerned. The case of ENISA, based in Heraklion, is exemplary. A 2006 report on the functioning of the Agency found that its location on “the island of Crete, elected by the Greek government, is indisputably isolated, even threatened with total isolation”.
This can indeed be a problem for an agency responsible for providing network functions. The 2009 Ramboll report even found that six EU agencies had significant or major removal problems. The issue of location has also been a recurring feature of the European Parliament Agency`s annual horizontal resolutions on budgetary discharge since Parliament first adopted these cross-cutting resolutions in 2012. . . .