Activities of Petr JEŽEK related to 2018/2200(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2017
Amendments (3)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes than in 2017 the budget of Europol increased from 104 to 118 million and its staffEUR and staff increased from 737 to 834 full-time equivalents; welcomes in this context of growing activities the lack of remarks of the Court of Auditors regarding the execution of the 2017 budget of Europol; welcomes as well that most of the recommendations issued by the Courts of Auditors for previous years have been closed; highlights, in particular, that for 2017 the Court of Auditors does no longer report excessive carry-overs of commitment appropriations from the previous year (2016) to the current year (2017) for Title II (administrative expenditure);
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Requests that Europol to provides more information on the tasks and budgetary implications of its Internet Referral Unit (IRU), which is not explicitly listed in the budget; questions the legal basis on which the IRU operates, as it does not seem to contribute to the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, but rather contributes to the deletion of allegedly illegal content on the basis of the terms of service of information society services without follow-up by law enforcementincluding specifically the role of the IRU in the prevention and combatting of serious crime, as set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, and the subsequent follow-up on cases identified;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets that Europol 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; acknowledges that the working language of Europol is principally English but points out that theEPSO site; acknowledges the concerns of the Agency with regards to additional translation costs due to the fact that EPSO requires publication of Europol vacancy notices on the EPSO website would be usefuin all official land relevant as it would increase transparency and publicity and allow citizens to identify vacancies published by the different Union institutions and agencies collectively; requests Europol to also publish itsguages; requests therefore that the 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;