9 Amendments of Michal ŠIMEČKA related to 2022/2134(DEC)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the Court issued three ‘emphasis on the matter’ paragraphs in relation to Frontex; is concerned about weaknesses in recruitment at Frontex related to the evaluation process; reiterates its deep concern about the findings of the OLAF report; reaffirms that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the JHA Agencies is conditional on the Agencies’ accountability and transparency, fundamental rights compliance, and commitment to comply with Union law; recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge to Frontex in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2021 until Frontex fully complies with such requirements and there are no further instances of fundamental rights violations; highlights that Frontex is currently undergoing a transition process, following the resignation of its former Executive Director, in light of an OLAF investigation into the mismanagement of Frontex; welcomes in this sense the various actions taken by the ad-interim management to improve its activities and standards; reaffirms that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the JHA Agencies is conditional on the Agencies’ accountability and transparency, fundamental rights compliance, and commitment to comply with Union law; calls on Frontex to continue its commitment towards fully implementing these necessary reforms, also after the appointment of a non- interim Executive Director, and to report to the discharge authority about the progress achieved;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the EDPS requested to the Court of Justice of the European Union to annul two provisions of the revised Europol Regulation, asrguing that they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of Europol’s budget for the financial year 2021 until the Court of Justice of the European Union delivers its judgementunderlines the fact that Europol has no control over the legality of articles in the Regulation detailing its mandate and prerogatives; 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 articles in cause and that all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended Europol Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category (DSC);
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the Court found that the payments underlying the accounts were legal and regular for all agencies except for eu-LISA, for which a qualified opinion was issued because of six payments that were considered not compliant to the provisions of framework contracts, amounting in total to EUR 18.11 million in 2021, representing 6,2 % of the total payment appropriations available in 2021; notes from eu-LISA's reply that compliance in this area is affected by several factors linked to budgetary planning, the sourcing model, managing contractual evolutions, delays in the adoption of relevant legislation, as well as understaffing, restricting the possibility of eu-LISA to limit the scope, duration and value of contracts; calls on the Commission to better coordinate the allocation of resources to eu-LISA with the adoption of relevant legislative acts;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses deep concern that public procurement weaknesses are increasing and remain the largest source of irregular payments and that the Court reported shortcomings in relation to contracts signed by Frontex, eu-LISA, CEPOL and EASO; expresses further concern over the shortage of procurement staff reported by eu-LISA, as well as by the lack of approrpriate grading for posts managing procurement procedures, such as the case of CEPOL where the highest graded procurement officer was recruited at the AST-5 grade; reiterates to the Commission the importance of appropriately graded positions when allocating tasks of great responsibility;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concern the Court’s findings on weaknesses in management and control systems in relation to Frontex, Europol, CEPOL and EPPO; calls on these agencies and on the EPPO to step up their efforts towards effectively addressing these weaknesses and to report to the discharge authority about the progress achieved;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that weaknesses in budgetary management can result in high carry-overs or late payments; is concerned that the Court found such shortcomings at Frontex, eu-LISA, EPPO and FRA; notes however that in certain cases the level of high carry-overs is also a result of factors that are outside of the Agencies' control such as the nature of their activities expanding on multi-annual periods, or the necessity to recur to external contractors over periods that extend beyond the financial year, due to understaffing;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Applauds that the Court hasfor the decidedsion to examine potential ‘revolving door’ situations in its audit and asks that this topic, as well as the associated risk of conflict of interests, is alsoare included in its future annual reports; shares the opinion by the Court that Agencies are particularly prone to the risk of ‘revolving door’ situations; expresses deep concern that the EU legal framework applicable to managing ‘revolving door’ risks lacks clear requirements on compliance and monitoring, and that it does not apply to members of the agencies’ management boards;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to propose changes to prevent any risk of ‘revolving door’ and conflict of interest; welcomes that most agencies publish the declarations of interest of their senior management and members of their respective management boards; recalls that such declarations should have a clear format allowing for the listing of any interests that may come in conflict with the nature of the position occupied; calls on the remaining agencies to follow this model and publish yearly declarations of interest of the above-mentioned representatives without further delay;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on all JHA agencies to ensure a gender balanced distribution on all levels of staff; further calls on all JHA agencies to take into consideration geographical balance when conducting their recruitment procedures and report to the discharge authority on implemented measures and progress achieved;