Activities of Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ related to 2022/2121(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2021
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 2021
Amendments (7)
Amendment 2 #
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 the budget of the Agency increased in 2021 from EUR 183 to 210 million (+14,75%), while members of staff increased from 884 to 9579 (+10,745%) within the same period; 1a; _________________ 1a ECA annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (‘ECA annual report for 2021’), see page 268 (Figure 3.33.1), available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocI tem.aspx?did=62271 [-/-2]979 / 884 = 1,107466 ó10.75 %
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RegretDiscerns the reported weaknesses iobservations2a on management and control systems, namely two cases ofin one case2b concerning the process to assess a potential conflict of interest situation in relation to a senior manager taking up a job elsewhere, whenin which case Europol did not issue its decision within the deadlinetimeline 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 Regulations; ; notes Europol’s response to the Court’s observations, outlining that an ex-post assessment confirmed that Europol was not exposed2c to a conflict of interest situation; acknowledges that Europol, together with only eight other decentralised agencies2d, has specific provisions covering the risk of ‘revolving door’ situations in relation to members of the board; _________________ 2a ECA annual report for 2021, see page 270 (Section 3.33.9): The ECA refers to “observations on management and control systems” 2b ECA annual report for 2021, see page 270 (Section 3.33.9): The ECA report states that two cases were assessed by Europol, while only in one case, the ECA made comments on the timeline of the decision-making. 2c ECA annual report for 2021, see page 272 2d ECA annual report for 2021, see page 58 (Box 2.8)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. RegretNotes 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 Court that this recurrent weaknesses exposes Europol to reputational risks; requests the Agency to increase its efforts to address all the observations from the Court; the Agency had paid late in 33% of the cases in 20203a , while in 2021, payment delays were reduced to 8%3b; highlights the opinion by the Court3c that the Agency should continue its efforts to address all the observations from the Court; _________________ 3a Source: ECA annual report for 2021, see page 271 3b ECA annual report for 2021, see page 271, information provided to the ECA by Europol (reduction to 8% in 2021). 3c ECA annual report for 2021, see page 271, information provided to the ECA by Europol (reduction to 8% in 2021). The ECA wants Europol to continue its efforts to keep payment delays at low levels.
Amendment 18 #
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, as they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; reminds that articles 74a and 74b have the effect of legalising retroactively Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no estab commends the action taken by Member States4b, operational cooperation partners and Europol, as no request was made to apply Article 74a and all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended Europol Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category (DSC)4a; _________________ 4a Current proceedings with the CJEU: The LIBE opinion cannot pre-empt the ruling of the CJEU of the EDPS motion and the official response of the Parliament to the CJEU as institution. 4b Europol reported to the EDPS in November 2022 that Article 74a was never applied, as Member States etc. did not request to make use of Article 74a. Accordingly, there is no materialished link to criminal activity, which the EDPS found to be in breach of Europol’s Regulation; effect. Meanwhile, the 231 contributions under Article 74b, reported to the EDPS in November 2022, have all been assigned with a Data Subject Categorisation (DSC). The suggested wording reflects these facts.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ICalls concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about F the Agency to take measures to continuously reinforce compliance with EU transparency rules5a as well as with fundamental rights and data prontex’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 that cooperation among JHA Agency 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 fundamental rights and data protection standards; ction standards; welcomes the swift appointment of the Europol Fundamental Rights Officer which was introduced with the amendments to the Europol Regulation that entered into force on 28 June 2022; _________________ 5a There was a dedicated session in the LIBE Committee on 8 November 2022 in which both Frontex and Europol provided answers. In addition, the topic was covered in the questions & answers at the Europol JPSG meeting on 24-25 October 2022, and before that, the topic was covered in a related JPSG written question (response given on 10 October 2022). Against this background, both Frontex and Europol provided information. In addition, this LIBE opinion is about the discharge of Europol.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned aboutDiscerns the individual complaints introduced against Europol for access to personal data and the lack of follow up done by the Agency to those requests, conducing to an order bya timely decision on the case by the EDPS, almost two years after the citizen complained to the EDPS6a; calls for an immediate closure by the EDPS with support from Europol and the competent authority in the concerned Member State; _________________ 6a Twitter announcements by the concerned citizen, information provided by Europol to the EDPS: The case referred to in the draft LIBE opinion on EDPS discharge concerns one complaint of a citizen (not several cases). Timeline: In March 2020, Europol received the data subject access request, Reply in June 2020: “… there are no data concerning you at Europol to which you are entitled to have access …” [under the Europol Regulation]. In October 2020, the data subject complained against the answer from Europol with the EDPS. In September 2022, the EDPS; is extremely concerned by the deletion of those data by the Agency without allowing the data subjesued a decision, instructing Europol to “… comply with the complainant’s request …, by providing the complainant with the full set of information which he is entitled to receive …”. The EDPS outlined at the same time that “Both Europol and the complainant may ask for a review by the EDPS of the present Decision within one month of receiving this letter…..” Europol, in addition to the citizens, requested a review by the EDPS, enclosing, inter alia, supporting evidence, outlining that “… access to the full set of information … was partially rejected by the Police … on the basis of … the national Police Data Act, to access in spite of EDPS decision; ransposing the Law Enforcement Directive …, in order to avoid adverse consequences for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses …” Now in January 2023, the EDPS has not yet issued the final decision in the case, despite the fact that the citizen and Europol requested a review, and the citizen put forward a motion to the CJEU in the case at hand.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2021, until the Court of Justice of the European Union delivers its judgement; 7a; _________________ 7a The EU Financial Rules do not foresee to connect the outcome of a CJEU proceeding with discharge. In addition, the CJEU case is against the legislator, not Europol.