Activities of Clare DALY related to 2020/2167(DEC)
Plenary speeches (1)
2019 Discharge: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (debate)
Shadow opinions (2)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019
Amendments (14)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with great concern the findings of the Court of Auditors’ (the Court) in its special report1 ; takes the view that any future special report by the Court on the Agency's activities should include analysis regarding respect for and the protection of fundamental rights; _________________ 1 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocu ments/SR21_08/SR_Frontex_EN.pdf
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with regret the weaknesses detected with respect to the Agency’s primary activities in support of the fight against irregular immigration and the fight against cross-border crime which are caused by an incomplete implementation of the 2016 mandate and the failure of the Agency to take the measures necessary to adapt its organisation to fully implement that mandate; notes with concern that the Court identifies a significant risk that the Agency will struggle to carry out the mandate given to it by Regulation (EU) 2019/18962 ; acknowledges the gaps and inconsistencies of the information exchange network and further acknowledges the weaknesses in Member States’ implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 establishing the European border surveillance system (EUROSUR); _________________ 2Regulation (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 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned that according to the Special report of the ECA the Agency did not provide information about the impact or cost of its activities, more particularly about the real cost; recalls that Frontex produces a large number of reports ofn its jJoint oOperations, either aggregated or disaggregated by operation (maritime and aerial) and type of costs (e.g. human resources and light equipment, or heavy equipment); notes that the Agency only presents costs based on estimates that can reveal significant differences; is disappointed that the Agency’s operational reporting but notes that three key aspects of its activities are not disclosed at all: (1) the Agency does not carry out a robust evaluation of these joint operations, (2) Frontex provides information on the resources needed, committed and deployed to these operations, but does not explain any deviation, or identify the impact of any gaps, (3) Frontex does not provide information about the real cost of its joint operations, either aggregated, or disaggregated by operation (maritime ans that decision makers are not adequately informedd aerial) and type of costs (e.g. human resources and light equipment, or heavy equipment);
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of 20 fundamental rights monitors; regrets that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level which is not in keeping with the Agency’s mandate under Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; insists that the Agency swiftly recruits the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and does so in AD positions; recalls that the Parliament and the European Commission have made repetitive calls on the Executive Director to comply with this obligation without further delay;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that former Fundamental Rights Officers have also faced difficulties while evaluating Joint Operations; stresses that the former FRO has encountered many problems in regard to the cooperation of the Member States, more precisely on the matter of replies by national authorities on the substance of cases; notes that this undermines the work and the tasks the FRO is assigned with;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Notes that in November 2019, new rules came into force concerning the complaints mechanism giving the FRO responsibility, in addition to dealing with complaints submitted through the mechanism and with Serious Incident Reports, for dealing with complaints alleging violations of the rules on the use of arms; notes that the Ombudsman opened an inquiry on her own initiative to look into how the Agency deals with alleged breaches of fundamental rights through its complaints mechanism, and to address the role and independence of the FRO in this regard; notes that among the Ombudsman’s main findings are the following: since its creation, the complaints mechanism has dealt with a very low number of complaints; between 2016 and January 2021, the FRO had received 69 complaints of which 22 were admissible; notes furthermore that this is explained by a number of factors including: (i) lack of awareness and understanding among potential complainants about the mechanism; (ii) fear of negative repercussions, coupled with the fact that it is not possible to submit anonymous complaints, (iii) stressful situations in which potential complainants find themselves; (iv) lack of engagement on the ground by Frontex deployed officers who could play a more active role in receiving and transmitting complaints to the FRO; notes that the Ombudsman concluded that there has been inadequate transparency in relation to the mechanism’s activities; notes that the FRO has no independence about its role vis-a-vis the SIRs in the context of fundamental rights issues; notes furthermore that with the FRO being given a role only late-on in the process of dealing with SIRs, the crucial role of the FRO in this process is undermined;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes that a legal action has been filed with the European Court of Justice against Frontex over human rights violations in the Aegean Sea and Frontex’s failure to terminate its operations in Greece despite serious, systematic, and widespread violations of fundamental rights under EU Law; recalls that the case was filed on behalf of two asylum seekers – an unaccompanied minor and a woman – who, while seeking asylum on EU soil (Lesbos), 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;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Expresses serious concerns regarding the "Serious Incident Report" number 11095 in which Frontex’s own staff noted that during the night from 18 to 19 April 2020, 30 migrants were illegally taken out of Greek waters by Greek coast guard members and left then adrift in Turkish waters; recalls that the agency is aware of many allegations of pushbacks in its operational areas; highlights that Frontex's assets have been ordered at different occasions to leave the area by national authorities to proceed with pushbacks and even ordered to carry out one push back as was the case on 2 March 2020; urges the Agency to immediately stop these pushbacks and respect international maritime law, fundamental rights and the right to apply for asylum;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the OLAF investigation into allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks by Frontex is still ongoing; notes also that the European Ombudsman’s inquiry with respect to the Agency’s complaints mechanism, case OI/5/2020/MHZ, was closed on 15 June 2021, finding, among other things, a regrettable lack of transparency; notes in addition that the Agency’s management board has closed its investigation on 13 incidents in the Aegean Sea; recalls that Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group has not yet completed its report on the allegations of violations of fundamental rights by the Agency;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Urges furthermore the Agency to carry out an independent investigation into these violations and reinforce internal reporting processes, ensuring concerns are effectively reported and not covered-up;
Amendment 43 #
7. Concludes that the increased competences and budget for the Agency need to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency; stresses that discharge for the Agency is conditional on such accountability and transparency, especially on the Agency's commitment to Union law and the fundamental rights therein; stresses in this context the need for a full clarification of the alleged violations of fundamental rights at the external borders;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that Frontex’s vulnerability assessments face several issues, one of them being that they fail to take into account fundamental rights; urges the Agency to comply with its obligations and take fundamental rights into account in these assessments;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Requests the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to postpone its decision on granting the executive director of Frontex discharge.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Expresses its deep concern on the role of the Executive Director who has the final responsibility for the Agency and its commitment to fulfilling its mandate and complying with its budgetary reporting obligations and respect for fundamental rights.