7 Amendments of Michal ŠIMEČKA related to 2022/2121(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (‘The Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annuals accounts of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material respects; recalls that, according to its statement of revenue and expenditure, the budget of the Agency increased in 2021 fromto EUR 183 to 21078.3 million (+14,752,41%), while members of staff increased from 884 to 9579 (+10,745%) within the same period;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the reported weaknesses inTakes note of the reported observations with respect to the functioning of management and control systems, namely the assessment of two cases of a potential conflict of interest situations in relation to aone senior manager taking up a job elsewhere; is concerned that in the case reviewed, wthen Court found that Europol did not issue its decision within the deadtimeline set in Article 16 of the Staff Regulations and thus effectively authorised the person concerned to take up the new job without any restrictions and in contravention of Article 16 of the Staff Regulationsin contravention of the above-mentioned article; notes Europol's reply acknowledging the observation and taking action to adapt its procedures in order to respect the deadlines set by the Staff Regulations; further notes that Europol conducted an ex-post assessment which confirmed that it was not exposed to a conflict of interest situation; welcomes the fact that Europol is one of nine EU decentralised agencies having specific provisions covering the risk of 'revolving doors' situations in relation to the members of its Management Board;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. RegretsNotes with concern that the observation from the Court stressing that late payments were issued by the Agency in 33% of the cases in 2020 is still ongoing; expresses concern that, according to the Court, similar levels of delays were observed in previous years; shares the opinion by the Courtunderlines that thissuch recurrent weaknesses exposes Europol to reputational risks; requestswelcomes the actions taken by Europol in addressing this situation and notes that in 2021 payment delays were reduced to 8%; calls on the Agency to increascontinue its efforts to address all the observations from the Court;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that on 16 September 2022, the EDPS requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union annul two provisions of the revisamended Europol Regulation, namely Articles 74a and 74b, asrguing that they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; remunderlindes that articles 74a and 74b hae fact that Europol has no control over the effect of legalising legality of articles in the Regulation detailing its mandate and pretrogactively Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no established link to criminals; highlights that this responsibility falls to the co-legislators and the Court, when certain provisions are challenged; takes further note that no request was made to apply the acrtivity, which the EDPS found to be in breach ofcles in cause and that all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended Europol’s Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category (DSC);
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ICalls concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standards; further calls on Europol to ensure that its cooperation among JHA Agencywith other JHA Agencies and other partners is fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fuwelcomes the swift appointment of the Europol Fundamental Rights Officer, position which was introduced with the amendamental rights and data protection standardss to the Europol Regulation that entered into force on 28 June 2022;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned about thNotes with concern one individual complaints to the EDPS, introduced against Europol for the refusal to grant access to personal data and the lack of follow up done by the Agency to those requests, conducing to an order by EDPS; is extremely concerned by the delet; takes note that the EDPS issued a decision instructing Europol to comply with the data subject request two years after the complaint was introduced; further notes that Europol requested a review by the EDPS of its decision; highlights that by January 2023 the EDPS had not yet issued a final decision ofn those dmata by the Agency without allowing the data subject to access in spite of EDPS decisionter; calls on Europol to report to the discharge authority about the progress of this situation and to fully comply with its obligations concerning the protection of personal data;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7