Activities of Petr JEŽEK related to 2018/2186(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of Eurojust for the financial year 2017
Amendments (3)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the lack of remarks of the Court of Auditors regarding the execution of the 2017 budget of Eurojust; welcomes especially that most of the recommendations issued by the Courts of Auditors for previous years have been closed; highlights, in particular, that foras from 2017 the Court of Auditors doeswill no longer report excessive carry-overs of commitment appropriations from the previous year (2016) to the current year (2017) for Title II (expenditure for support activities);
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that Eurojust does notTakes note of the Court's comments with regards to publishing vacancy notices on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) but only on its own website and in social media; acknowledgeEPSO site; acknowledges the concerns of the Agency with regards theo additional translation costs incurred but points out that there is only a limited number of vacancies concerned in the case of Eurojust; agrees with the Court of Auditdue to the fact that EPSO requires publication of vacancy notices in all official languages; requests thereforse that this would be relevant and useful as EPSO publications increase transparency and publicity and allow citizens to identify vacancies published by the different Union institutions and agencies collectively; insists therefore that Eurojust also publishes itse Agency publish all vacancy notices on the inter-agency job board developed by the EU Agencies network, and where relevant to also post vacancy notices on the EPSO website;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RegretNotes that the recommendation issued by the Court of Auditors in 2010 to reconsider the definition of respective roles and responsibilities between the Director and the College of Eurojust to avoid overlap of responsibilities (resulting from the Founding Regulation1 ) was still open end of 2017; acknowledges that addressing this issue is not under the Eurojust’s control; reminds ofwelcomes the adoption of the new Eurojust Regulation and expects that these issues are resolved with the new structure and the clarification of roles and responsibilities therein, including the new Executive Board. _________________ 1 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1).