The European Parliament is the discharge authority. By granting a discharge the MEPs approve the implementation of the EU budget for a given year. Hence, they declare that a particular EU institution or agency has spent EU taxpayers’ money in line with EU rules that govern the implementation of the EU budget. The European Parliament can also refuse or postpone the discharge, if spending was not in line with these rules.
The European Parliament granted on 10 May a budget discharge to the European Commission as well as to almost all the other EU institutions and agencies, and postponed the discharge for the Council of Ministers and the EU Agencies for Food Safety, Medicines and the Environment.

The European Parliament voted, last May, to postpone the grant of discharge to the Council for the 2010 budget. Every year the MEPs decided to postpone signing off the Council’ accounts due to the Council refusal to provide information on them. According to the MEPs the "administrative expenditure of the Council ought to be scrutinized in the same way as that of the other European institutions as part of the discharge procedure.” However, according to the Council, the European Parliament has no power to issue discharge, as it bases its position on the 1970 ‘gentlemen’s agreement’, whereby Parliament and the Council do not scrutinise the implementation of their respective budgets. Hence, the Council, respecting the gentlemen's agreement does not formally respond to European Parliament’s requests relating to the discharge. The European Parliament pointed out that the ECA “criticised the financing of the Residence Palace building project because of the advance payments made by the Council totalled EUR 235 000 000”, and noted “that the amounts paid came from under-utilised budget lines” meaning 'over-budgeted'. Moreover, the MEPs noted “that in 2010 the Council increased the budget line for ‘Acquisition of immovable property’ by EUR 40 000 000”. The European Parliament also wanted to know the total amount of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) expenditure in 2009. However, the Council has not provided yet the MEPS with any of the information requested. Hence, on 26 September, the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee recommended that the European Parliament refuse to grant discharge to the Council for its spending in 2010. The MEPs of the Budgetary Control Committee stressed the Council’s lack of cooperation, as it has not replied to any of the Committee’s questions on its accounts. The vote on discharge for the Council’s 2010 budget will take place in October, and the European Parliament might reject its accounts for 2010.

There is an endless list of EU agencies, most of them are useless and a waste of taxpayers money. In fact, there are several issues in the way that several EU agencies manage their budgets. The European Parliament signed off the 2010 accounts of most of the 24 EU agencies. But, it has not endorsed the 2010 accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) based in Parma, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) based in London and the European Environment Agency (EEA) based in Copenhagen. The MEPs decided to postpone the discharge for these agencies due to alleged conflicts of interest and irregular use of EU funds.

The European Parliament noted that the budget of the European Environment Agency for the year 2010 was EUR 50 600 000, which represents a 26 % increase comparing to 2009. There was also an increase of 2% in the EU contribution to the budget of the Agency, which was EUR 34 560 000 in 2009 and EUR 35 258 000 in 2010.
Moreover, according to the European Parliament, the Executive Director of the Agency, from June 2010 until April 2011, was a trustee and a member of the International Advisory Board of Earthwatch and member of the European Advisory Board of Worldwatch Europe. The MEPs noted that the Agency’s Executive Director resigned from her positions in Earthwatch in April 2011 “following advice from the President of the Court of Auditors in the context of a possible conflict of interests”. However, the European Parliament is very concerned that the Agency paid a total of EUR 33 791,28, to Earthwatch for staff training in Caribbean and Mediteranean based biodiversity projects managed by it, while the Executive Director was still a member of the International Advisory Board of the NGO. Hence, the European Parliament postponed its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's 2010 budget. In the meantime, the MEPs called on the Agency, in order to expose any potential conflicts, “to adopt immediately an action plan to publish on its website the declarations of interest and, when they are not available, the curriculum vitae – including at least the educational and work background – for the management staff, the members of the scientific committee, the experts and the members of the Management Board by 30 June 2012”. As Ingeborg Grässle, the EPP's spokeswoman on budgetary control, said: “A discharge for the environment agency would have been a blank cheque for the careless use of taxpayers' money.”

The Budgetary Control Committee approved the 2010 accounts of the European Food Safety Authority and the European Medicines Agency, but it has recommended that the European Parliament refuse to grant discharge to the European Environment Agency, as the MEPs on the committee were not pleased with the answers given by it.