Activities of Malin BJÖRK related to 2021/2146(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020
Amendments (24)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recommends to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the 'Agency') for the financial year 2020 in light of grave concerns;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Welcomes the resignation of the Agency's former Executive Director and his former head of cabinet following the release of the first OLAF report; deplores the absence of disciplinary proceedings against them despite the recommendations of OLAF in this regard; condemns the lies of its former Executive Director to the European Parliament at different occasions;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2019 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; notes that the budget of the Agency was increased from EUR 446 million to EUR 495 million (+ 11 %); takes note of the increase in the Agency's staff in 2020 from 749 to 1 234 (+ 64,8 %);
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deeply regretCondemns that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; highlights in this regard the concluding findings of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group indicating that the Executive Director of the Agency has caused a significant and unnecessary delay in the recruitment of fundamental rights monitors; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, as Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made very recently by the Agency in that respect; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions increases the risk of refusal to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the ongoing actions of the Agency on the observations of the Court; calls on the Agency to continue undertaking corrective actions, including the adoption and implementation of a sensitive posts policy in line with its own internal control standards, drafting a business continuity plan and obtaining the approval of its management board, addressing the risk of double funding from the Internal Security Fund and addressing the high level of carry-overs; calls on the Agency to step up its efforts into reaching the required occupancy levels laid down in the staff establishment plan; welcomes the corrective steps taken by the Agency to address the issue of reimbursements to cooperating countries without the necessary supporting documentation;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation on the Agency over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks; underlines that the outcome of the investigation was still pending by early December 2021; reminds that the Ombudsman conducted two own- initiative inquiries into the complaints mechanism of the Agency and on the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations; reiterates the concern on the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group andcalls that on 15 June 2021, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been delay on the part of the Agency in implementing the important changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2019/18961a; notes that based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman issued nine suggestions for improvement to the Agency; reiterates the concern on the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; recalls that this report revealed that the Agency’s activities were not sufficiently developed to provide an effective support to Member States and Schengen associated countries and that the Agency did not provide information about the impact or cost of its activities; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group, which has identified deficiencies – among others – in the Agency’s mechanisms to monitor, report and assess fundamental rights situations, and has made recommendations for improvement; highlights the personal responsibility of the executive director in relation to those deficiencies; recalls also the conclusions of the 13 internal inquiries by itsthe management board of the Agency; welcomes the Agency’s report on the implementation of the conclusions of the extraordinary management board meeting of 6 October 2021 which reflects the 71 recommendations received from the aforementioned reports and audits; notes that the Agency implemented 59 of those actions; calls urgently on the Agency to take all necessary measures towards implementing all the remaining recommendations and to report to the discharge authority over the progress achieved; _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1).
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the call to suspend the Agency’s support for return-related operations from Hungary for as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not been fulfilled; calls on the Agency to suspend those operations in Hungary immediately; is deeply concerned that the Agency’s management board has still not adopted a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, especially in the light of developments in Lithuania, Latvia and Greece;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Urges the Agency to implement correctly Article 46; notes in that regard with concern that the Agency despite reports by the Fundamental Rights Officer that Lithuanian laws were incompatible with EU and international law, which was confirmed by the ECJ in its Judgment on 30 June 2022, failed to act in accordance with Article 46, and has led the Agency's staff to being complicit of fundamental rights violations; regrets that even after the ECJ judgement, Article 46 was not invoked and operational redeployment was justified only on the basis of operational needs; calls for a suspension of the Agency's operations in Lithuania and Latvia till their laws are in line with the EU acquis; reiterates its call to thoroughly evaluate its operations in Greece, in light of reports by OLAF, institutions of Member States, the Council of Europe and the UN, that show that the Agency was carrying out joint border surveillance operations in sections where at the time, fundamental rights violations were taking place; calls, given those evidences, for the immediate suspension of operations of the Agency in Greece;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Points that, as reported by the media, OLAF investigators detailed "how Frontex used European taxpayer money to fund pushbacks in at least six instances" and that this was concealed "from all subsequent inquiries made by the European Parliament and Frontex’s Management Board"; highlights that in April 2022, a new investigation coordinated by Lighthouse reports showed that the Agency was involved in the illegal pushbacks of at least 957 refugees between March 2020 and September 2021; calls for an urgent re-examination by the Agency of all potential incidents based on the findings of the OLAF report, including the ones that were not categorized as a potential fundamental rights violation;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Highlights that new media reports published on 7 July 2022 showed that the Agency side-lined their own data protection watchdogs in pursuing an expansion of “intrusive” data collection from migrants and asylum seekers under the PeDRA programme, including genetic data and sexual orientation to store, analyse and share that data with Europol and security agencies of member state; condemns the decision by the Agency's former Executive Director, the European Commission and Frontex Management board to ignore the Agency’s own Data Protection Officer, who warned repeatedly that the PeDRA expansion “cannot be achieved by breaching compliance with EU legislation” and that the programme posed “a serious risk of function creep in relation to the Agency’s mandate.” as well as the decision to not consult EDPS despite warnings of the serious risks of the programme by the DPO;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following Parliament’s resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, namely: (1) the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors; regrets the fact that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; deeply regrets the delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors and recalls that this poses a serious risk to operations and reputation of the Agency; notes that Parliament has been calling for years for those posts to be filled as soon as possible in order to comply with the legal obligation set out in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; underlines that the executive director of the Agency declared in front of Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs that those posts would be filled before the end of 2021; welcomes the cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights towards completing the recruitment of the reminding fundamental rights monitors; (2) the appointment of the three deputy executive directors in 2021; and (3) the update of the Standard Operating Procedure for Serious Incident Reporting in May 2021;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Highlights that the Agency’s aerial surveillance in the Central Mediterranean and its direct transmission of information to the so-called Libyan coast guards in order for the persons to be intercepted at sea, as reported by media, is making the Agency complicit of what has been described by the UN as “crimes against humanity” in Libya that are conducted against migrants in detention centres after they have been pulled back to Libya;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes further that one action brought in May 2021 was brought on behalf of two asylum-seekers - an unaccompanied minor and a woman - who were violently rounded up, assaulted, robbed, abducted, detained, forcibly transferred back to sea, collectively expelled, and ultimately abandoned on rafts with no means of navigation, food or water; is shocked that the applicants were also victims of other pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; notes that another action was brought in October 2021 on behalf of a Syrian family that was returned from Greece to Turkey on a flight operated by the Agency and the Greek authorities; highlights that another case was brought in March 2022 to the Court by A.H. who landed on a Greek island with 21 other asylum-seekers in April 2020, and, instead of processing their asylum claims, were subsequently abducted, detained, forcibly transferred to and abandoned by the authorities on a raft left adrift for 17 hours with no life-vests, water, food, means of navigation or communication while a plane of the Agency surveilled from above.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2 f. Expresses serious concerns regarding the fact that an interpreter employed by the Agency was assaulted by Greek border guards in Greece alongside at least one hundred third-country nationals and was then forced, together with other persons, across the border into Turkey; strongly deplores that there has still not been any conclusion by the agency nor Greek authorities of the investigation in this specific case that was reported in November 2021 to the Frontex Management Board; highlights that this episode is another credible evidence of the systematic violations of fundamental rights that occur in Greece and the absence of appropriate actions taken by the agency to address those violations;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes further that one action brought in May 2021 was brought on behalf of two asylum-seekers - an unaccompanied minor and a woman - who were violently rounded up, assaulted, robbed, abducted, detained, forcibly transferred back to sea, collectively expelled, and ultimately abandoned on rafts with no means of navigation, food or water; is shocked that the applicants were also victims of other pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; notes that another action was brought in October 2021 on behalf of a Syrian family that was returned from Greece to Turkey on a flight operated by the Agency and the Greek authorities;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Expresses serious concerns regarding the fact that an interpreter employed by the Agency was assaulted by Greek border guards in Greece alongside at least hundred third-country nationals and was then forced, together with other persons, across the border into Turkey; highlights that this episode is another credible evidence of the systematic violations of fundamental rights that occur in Greece and should lead the Agency to suspend its operations in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; expresses serious concerns at the numerous serious incident reports reporting violations of fundamental rights in Greece and Lithuania and the absence of appropriate actions taken by the executive director to address those violations, including by following all the recommendations of the fundamental rights officer and suspending operations in line with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the decision to partially grant access to the first report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on thepart of its investigations conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access that hampered members scrutiny of the agency; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation that looked notably at the handling of reports of fundamental rights incidents including push-backs; expresses its utter disappointment incondemnation of the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020deeply regrets that the Agency has seen its budget expanded in the last years from EUR 118 million in 2011 to an annual average of EUR 900 million for the 2021- 2027 period despite serious concerns over the lack of implementation of its regulation, its management, and fundamental rights violations, now all confirmed by the findings of the OLAF report; highlights that the Parliament should not have increased the budget nor granted discharge to the agency in the previous years and should not grant discharge for the financial year 2020; calls on the new interim executive director, the deputy EDs and the Fundamental Rights Officer to urgently be granted access to the report in light of its crucial importance for their work; reiterates its call for public access to the OLAF investigation in light of its public interest;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. CRegrets that it has to be repeated and calls on the Agency to swiftimmediately adopt a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to suspend the Agency's operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Points that two additional OLAF reports are expected to be presented in 2022 in relation to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency; calls for immediate access of Members of Parliament to these additional reports when they will be finalised to ensure Members scrutiny as well as of all executive staff of the agency that need to access the report to ensure a correct implementation of the agency's budget in the future;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the appointment of the interim executive director on 1 July 2022; calls urgently on the Agency's management board to grant her as well as the FRO access to the OLAF report to ensure a correct implementation of the Agency's budget and regulation in the future;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Requests Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to postpone its decision on granting the executive director of the Agency discharge until the investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Office is completed;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; welcomes also her commitment to transparency; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes with concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle that issueall the issues that appear to have become structural over the years;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes with strong concern the media reports in August 2022 whereby the Agency is accused of exploiting cultural mediators by using a contractor who allegedly offers them an effective wage of less than €2.50 an hour, considering that they need to be available 24/7; points the petition initiated by cultural mediators in this regard as well as their complaint to the EU Ombudswoman;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the monsiders that the Agency's Management Board has failed in its mission to uphold the respect for fundamental rights by not acting, and thereby bears responsibility for the deterioration of fundamental rights standards of the Agency; calls on the Management bBoard and the Commission to recruit a new executive director as soon as possibleensure that the Agency stops being involved and/or covering up fundamental rights violations, and to recruit a new executive director as soon as possible who should be strongly committed to ensure the respect of fundamental rights in all activities of the Agency.