This paragraph intends to show that the EEAS is a service of the HR. Consequently, it is not completely independent and it does not participate in its name and on its own behalf in the political life of the Union. The EEAS nonetheless enjoys autonomy from its master with respect to its internal management, and is consequently conceivable as a separate body, albeit exclusively in relation to administrative issues. This can be demonstrated by comparing the autonomy of the EEAS to the autonomy of other Union offices and bodies.
Union offices and bodies generally enjoy ample autonomy, in six perspectives. In the first place, they are endowed with autonomous competences; therefore, they participate in the division of powers set by the Treaties. Secondly, and as a corollary of their competences, most Union offices and bodies autonomously determine their political line. To be sure, some offices and bodies are accountable to others and all bodies follow the general political directions set by the European Council.213
However, Union offices and bodies usually have margin of manoeuvre in the performance of their tasks. Thirdly, most Union bodies can autonomously adopt the rules that govern their functioning.214 Such form of autonomy is most evident in the
case of the Council, since Article 240(2) TFEU explicitly affirms that the Council decides on the organisation of its General Secretariat. The Treaties also protect the autonomy of the Commission, since Article 249(1) TFEU states that the Commission adopts its Rules of Procedure so as to ensure that its departments operate. Similarly, the other EU institutions, as well as the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR), adopt their rules of procedure.215 Fourthly, Union bodies, and, in particular institutions,
determine the provisions that govern access to the documents they possess, consistently with Article 15 TFEU and secondary law; they also decide whether to grant access to specific documents. Fifthly, most EU bodies and offices autonomously manage their internal budget. Although the Commission generally implements the EU budget ex Article 317 TFEU, Regulation 1605/2002 (Financial Regulation) affirms that the Commission confers on other bodies (including institutions, the EESC, the CoR, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor) the requisite powers for the implementation of the sections
213 Article 15(1) TEU.
214 For a discussion of organisational autonomy, see Roland, Le Triangle Décisionnel
Communautaire a L'aune de La Théorie de La Séparation Des Pouvoirs: Recherches sur La Distribution Des Pouvoirs Législatif et Exécutif dans La Communauté (Bruylant, 2008), pp. 160 ff.
215 Article 232, 235(3), 253, 287 TFEU and Article 12(3) of the ECB Statute, respectively. Also
of the budget relating to them.216 In practice, these offices and bodies authorise,
through agents called “authorising officers by delegation”,217 the disbursement of
the funds related to their internal functioning. Sixthly, according to the Staff Regulations218 most Union bodies, including institutions, the EESC, the CoR, the
European Ombudsman, and the European Data Protection Supervisor, are capable of entrusting an agent of theirs (the “appointing authority”) with the power to appoint, promote or transfer officials within the ranks of their respective administrations.219 In addition, these bodies hold the exclusive power to issue
instructions for their agents.220
The EEAS may appear not to have any autonomy from the HR. Provided that the Service's mandate consists of assisting the HR, the EEAS does not have competences of its own, but it exercises those of its master. This implies that the HR has authority on the Service and can consequently exercise the powers typical of entities heading public administrations. The authority of the HR extends firstly to 'operative' issues, since he/she can set the political line the Service must follow and, for this purpose, issue instructions to the EEAS staff. The HR has also powers relating to administrative issues: he/she can determine the structure of the EEAS221
as well as the rules that concern its administrative budget and staff;222 moreover,
he/she authorises the expenses of the Service, as its ‘authorising officer’, and she manages its staff, in his/her capacity as ‘appointing authority’ of the Service.223
A more careful analysis of the EEAS’ prerogatives, nonetheless, shows that the Service has some autonomy from its master in respect of 'administrative' issues, that is to say access to documents, staff management and budget implementation. The EEAS enjoys relevant autonomy with respect to access to its documents, since the EEAS Decision enabled the Service to grant, or refuse, access to its own documents.224 More interestingly, the EEAS is autonomous also with respect to
administrative budget implementation and staff management. This is demonstrated by the fact that, in a substantive perspective, budget implementation and staff management decisions are often taken by EEAS, and not by the HR: provided that the latter can hardly find the time and resources to perform political tasks, he/she is most unlikely to interfere with ‘bureaucratic’ issues.225 The EEAS' autonomy in
216 Council Regulation 1605/2002/EC/Euratom, of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation
applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, O.J. 2002 L 248/1–48.
217 Id., Article 59.
218 Regulation 259/68/Euratom/ECSC/EEC of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff
Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, O.J. 1968 L 56/1–7, ECR English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II) p. 30 as lastly amended by Regulation 1080/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, O.J. L 311/1-8.
219 Id., Article 2. 220 Id., Article 11.
221 Notice however that the overarching structure of the EEAS is contained in the EEAS Decision,
according to which the Service is managed by an executive secretary-general and it is divided in Union Delegations and a central administration. The latter is further divided in directorates-general and administrative departments, see Articles 1 and 4.
222 EEAS Decision, Article 8(1) and 6(5).
223 Decision of the High Representative on the internal rules on the implementation of the budget of
the European External Action Service, PROC HR(2011) 001, 31 January 2011, not published in the O.J., Article 3; EEAS Decision Article 6(5), Staff regulations Article 7.
224 See Article 11.
225 Admittedly, in a relatively few cases this consideration may not apply, since it is presumable that
respect of staff management and budget implementation becomes more evident in a formal perspective, since, for the purpose of the financial regulation and staff regulations, the EEAS is considered as an institution. Therefore it has its own budget and its entertains direct relations with its officers. The HR simply acts as the authorising officer and appointing authority of the EEAS: he/she does not operate in his/her capacity as High Representative, but rather in his/her capacity as EEAS top officer (i.e. as an organ of the EEAS).
Therefore, the EEAS has decisional autonomy with respect to access to documents, administrative budget and staff management. This form of autonomy may be labelled as ‘administrative’.226 Consequently, we provisionally term the EEAS as an
‘administratively autonomous entity’. The next paragraph clarifies the EEAS' status, and its consequences, by comparing it to other EU bodies.