24 Amendments of Arnaud DANJEAN related to 2022/2082(DEC)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls thatWelcomes that pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should bare discussed and voted on by the Bureau, pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation; is deeply disappointed, however, that each year very concrete demands adopted by Plenary in discharge resolutions are not reflected in the discussions of the Bureau meetings despite the fact; reminds, in light of Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure that the Bureau is responsible to take decisions on financial, organisational and administrative matters concerning Members; highlights, that bothe Bureau members and the Secretary-General are aware of the discharge resolutions and have the capacity to submit proposals under the aforementioned Rule 25; is disappointed that the Secretary-General's written replies to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control are often limited to quoting the current rules without any is composed of democratically elected Members of all political groups; notes, that the members of the Bureau participate in deliberations and vote on resolutions related to Parliament’s draft estimates and discharge procedures; highlights, that since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandedmicated discussion in the Bureau and thus, lacking a genuine effort or intention to review those rules in accordance with Parliament’s will; believes that this situation is detrimental to the exercise in March 2020 and until the gradual lifting of sanitary restrictions at the beginning of 2022, the Bureau`s deliberations were focused primarily on decisions aimed at protecting the integrity of dMemocratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodiesbers and staff while ensuring business continuity and implementing practical solidarity measures vis-à-vis the three host Member States of the Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the Bureau has been mandated by the Plenary to decide all administrative, staff and organisational matters concerning Members and is concerned that the decisions of the Bureau often fail to respect the will expressed by the Plenary in discharge resolutions; reiterates the importance of the discharge procedure as set in the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure and demands that resolutions affecting the functioning of Parliament be thoroughly taken into consideration and followed up in a legitimate, transparent manner; recommeminds that the Committeeagendas onf Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau and calls on the Secretary-General to always include a clear list of the Bureau discussions and votes when providing the replies to the discharge resolutionsreau meetings are published beforehand and are made available on Parliament's internet site and that all Bureau discussions and decisions, including the ones in camera, are minuted and, once approved by the Bureau, the minutes are also accessible on Parliament's internet site; recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the impact of the continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 led to substantial transfers within Parliament’s budget, and that a budgetary surplus became available in areas such as travel expenses, organisation and reception of groups of visitors, the operation of Parliament visitors’ centres, in-person training, and lower energy consumption; notes that, at the same time, the pandemic created additional budgetary needs in other areas, notably health and prevention, as well as technical equipment and logistics for multilingual hybrid meetings and votes; observes that a substantial part of the savings were used to amortise the costs of the expansivetransferred to building policy of the last few years;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Calls for a deep reflection onAcknowledges the new ways of working that can reconcile the needs of Parliament’s administration (including team cohesion, internal communication, and on-boarding of newcomers) with the expectations and satisfaction of its staff, which would positively impact their performance as well as the attractiveness of Parliament as an employer; highlights in this context the importance of a genuine social dialogue with the staff representatives on crucial points like a flexible work environment, health and welfare and training and career opportunities; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these new forms of work; suggests that a joint committee be established that assists DG PERS in monitoring the effective implementation and compliance of clear guidelines on teleworking and the right to disconnect that can be adaptedhighlights that physical presence is of crucial importance for the efficient interaction of all actors in every parliamentary process; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these needs of the different servicesw forms of work;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls the seriously inadequate staffing levels in Parliament’s committee secretariats at the end of 2020 due, inter alia, to the increased workload, the working methods applied under the COVID-19 pandemic and the creation of new temporary committees; welcomes the fact that further to the adoption of the 2022 budget, 66 new organigram posts (12 for the Directorate-General for External Policies (DG EXPO) and 54 posts for the Directorate-General for Internal Policies (DG IPOL)), were created in the establishment plan with a view to swiftly reinforcing the support to parliamentary committees; is concerned that, currently, the net increase of staff (including organigram posts and contract agents) is planned to only include 8 additional members of staff, notably as the number of contractual agents has decreased by 23 between January and November 2022; remindswelcomes the efforts of the Secretary- General tof the commitment to an actual reinforcement of the human resources capacity in DG EXPO and DG IPOL, including an adequate level of contract agents; points outacknowledges that all available resources in committees, policy departments, horizontal and support services shouldare to be assigned to the implementation of Parliament’s legislative, budgetary and control powers and procedures; calls therefore for the available resources to be distributed according to the committees’ level of activity in these areas and not only to the number of legislative reports;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recalls that, according to Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, the Staff Committee represents the interests of the staff vis-à-vis their institution and maintains continuous contact with them; points out that decisions taken by Parliament’s governing bodies often have a significant impact on staff and thus, reiterates that it is essential for staff representatives to be heard when general matters affecting Parliament’s staff policy are discussed; reiterates furthermore its request to the Secretary-General to take the appropriate measures to implement this key approach, for instance setting up a mandatory consultation procedure with staff representatives during the preparation of the proposals for Bureau decisions on staff matters;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Recalls Parliament’s recommendation to the Commission in its resolution of 18 April 2018 ‘to review its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected within a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities, thereby also setting an example for the other European institutions’; is of the opinion that an accelerated appointment procedure and an interview made up of only three questions to select its Secretary-General falls short of what is expected of Parliament in terms of transparency, accountability and good adminisreminds that the appointment procedure of the Secretary-General was a transparent process, where candidates were treation, and it is profoundly damaging to the institution’s reputation; recalls furthermore its own recommendation that officials from staff representatives bodies should sit on Parliament’s senior management selection panels; calls therefore on the Secretary-General to submit a proposal to the Bureau to modify its decision of 16 May 2000 laying down the steps in the procedure for appointing senior officials, in order to enable staff representatives to participed in a fair and equitable manner whilst complying with all necessary eligibility requirements; highlights, that the decision made on the selection of the successful candidate was observers in the Advisory Committee, which is fully compatible with Article 3(4) of Annex III of the Staff Regulationscarried out with a large majority of the Bureau;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. RegretObserves that the applicable rules adopted by the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents currently prohibit APAs to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and committee missions; points out that the technical support that APAs provide during missions is of key importance to the participating Members, in particular when they are involved in the organisation or play a specific role; is concerned that this situation compels Members to resort tois concerned that the situation of financing APAs’ travel with the gGeneral eExpenditure aAllowance and obliges APAs to use their annual leave, thus jeopardising their insurance coverage, which representsputs the Parliament in a serious reputational risk for Parliament; regre; highlights, that neither the Bureau nor the Conference of Presidents have followed up on the long-standing request to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determined, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, as reiterated by ; highlights, that the presence of APAs on EP official missions could damage EP’s image and credibility; observeral discharge resolutions; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to respond positively to this demands also that allowing APAs to participate on official missions imposes specific risks with regards to their insurance coverage; reminds that MEPs are already accompanied by representatives of political groups on these missions;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the fact that the Bureau’s last revision of the rules for visitors’ groups introduced the possibility for Members to designate professionals to hold the financial responsibility, which has brought about a decrease of APAs as heads of visitors’ groups to 28%; reiterates that APAs should not be compelled to takehighlights that it is preferred when APAs are not designated as heads of groups as this level onf suchbstantial financial responsibility, which can amount to substantial sums of money in some cases; insists, might compromise the appropriate auditing procedures following the groups’ visits especially in the case when APAs have left the EP and are no longer MEPs’ staff but some of the audits might take place up to 3 years following the groups’ visit; asks therefore, to the Bureau that APAs beo consider eliminateding APAs from the list of permitted heads of groups, leaving only a member of the sponsored group or a professional, such as paying agents or travel agencies, to take up the role or to consider adjusting APAs liability especially in the cases when they are no longer EP’s employees;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Notes that the reduction for trainees in Parliament’s canteens, amounting to EUR 1,00 as of 1 April 2022, is based on previous discounts which are in turn based on the contracts signed and the prices at the time; believes that this reduction is at the moment purely symbolic and absolutely insufficient and calls, therefore, on Parliament’s administration to establish an automatic update on the basis of the food price variations;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Stresses that transparency, accountability, and integrity are essential ethics principles within the Union institutions and particularly Parliament as house of the European democracy; recalls that unethical behaviours must be prevented, persecuted and condemned for significantly damage the credibility and legitimacy of the Union and constitute a serious threat to democracy and public trust; recalls the Court’s conclusions and recommendations in its special report 13/2019 on the ethnical frameworks of Union institutions, as well as Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions by setting up an independentUnion ethics body; ; supports the reinforcement of the existing high ethical standards for politicians and for the guidance on the implementation of ethical rules, while fully respecting the separation of powers between the institutions and the rule of law; underlines that creating additional bodies and structures within the EU institutional framework would only add an additional burden to the work of the EU as the anti- fraud players such as OLAF, EPPO, Europol and Eurojust are already tasked to monitor and protect the spending of the EU budget and prevent any possibilities for mismanagement of funds; notes the importance of strengthening the systems in place and to address any shortcomings; notes that the proper application of existing rules can bring significant improvements; highlights that a cooperation agreement between the EPPO and the EP with clear rules and procedures is necessary to further facilitate and maintain the protection EU’s financial interest; such agreement shall provide that the EP reports to the EPPO concerns regarding any criminal conduct in line with the EPPO regulation and the Financial Regulation; reminds that the Treaties of the European Union are the primary law and reside at the top of the hierarchy of norms; the Treaties establish the EU’s institutions and clearly define their competences and decision- making powers (Article 13 TEU); Parliament together with the Council are the co-legislators (Article 14(1) TEU); reminds that under the Treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union is the supreme judicial body of the EU (Article 19 TEU); there can be no higher judicial decision-making authority above it; under no circumstances can secondary law contradict or amend primary law; reminds that, therefore, the establishment of an independent ethics body with the power to make binding decisions on the EU’s institutions and organs counter to the separation of powers laid down in the Treaties, would imperatively require a change of the Treaties; stresses that transparency cannot undermine integrity and data protection;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework that integrates lessons learned and strengthens the current rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to address effectively current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls in particular for a revision of thehighlights the need to reinforce trust in the European decision-making by strengthening transparency, ethics and conduct in the European Parliament; stresses that an abuse or misuse of EP’s Rules of Procedure and the Members’ Code of Conduct, as well as for an urgent upgrade of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, in ord should be immediately addressed in a thorough and systematic manner; recalls the crucial role played by Members in the European decision- making, while protecting the freedom of Members’ mandate, as elected representatives; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying, NGOs funded in an unclear manner or other interest representatives constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero to ensurelerance and heightened vigilance; highlights, that it is essential that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Paragraph 62 a (new)
62a. Calls for of a ban on friendship groups with third countries that would forbid the activities or meetings of any unofficial groupings of Members that might result in confusion with the official activities of the Parliament with third countries as required by Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure; recommends that third countries should interact with the Parliament through the already existing official Parliament delegations, other committees or through the Committee on Foreign Affairs as required;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Notes that the ‘advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace’ is composed of three members designated by the Appointing Authority (including the chair), two Staff Committee members and one expert advisor from the medical service; notes that the ‘advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members’ is composed of three Quaestors (including the chair), the chair of the first committee, two APA committee members, one staff committee member (only for cases concerning a member of staff), and two expert advisors, namely from the legal and the medical services respectively; is concerned by the lack of independent experts on harassment issues in both committees, as well as the absence of the legal service in the first case; calls for a Secretary-General decision reviewing the composition of both advisory committees and stipulating mandatory training on harassment prevention and equal opportunities for all their members;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position in whistleblowing cases due to their particular employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to modifyfully adapt the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 to align themand contained in the Staff Regulations to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , as well as to provideincluding by setting up secure channels for reporting; further notes that whistleblower APAs with a similadeserve proper protection similar to that of victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation and protection measures concerning; requests Parliament to raise awareness, where possible, anmonymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliationg parliamentary staff on their whistleblower protections; _________________ 2 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Notes that eight Members decided, on their own initiative, to observe elections in third countries where Parliament had decided not to send an election observation delegation or had not been invited; notes that in all eight cases the Members were in breach of the Implementing Provisions of the European Parliament’s Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group and that they could not and were not selected to participate in an official Election Observation delegation until the end of 2021; requests that MEPs involved in unofficial election observation missions should be sanctioned for the duration of the mandate;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. Highlights Parliament’s investment in strengthening its cybersecurity, which includes the creation of a dedicated Directorate in DG ITEC and a significant increase of the related resources aiming to increase the protection of Parliament’s information systems in the face of growing threats and ransomware attacks; welcomes the expansion of the range of digital services provided via the e-Portal leading to an increase of 67% in the number of transactions, which is a significant increase compared to 2020, and to the achievement of 85% use rate of the e-Portal by Members for their travel and subsistence expenses; praises the specific measures undertaken to facilitate administrative procedures and the intended efforts towards less bureaucracy when it comes to the services for Members including the greater digitalisation of the e-Portal and improved intuitive consultation function for travel and subsistence expenses;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Notes that DG SAFE’s reorganisation has foreseen the creation of the new Directorate on Security Technology and Information aiming to ensure protection of all categories of information handled by Parliament; is concernedobserves that the specific unit responsible for Security Engineering has been created but that the head of unit position does not appear as such in Parliament’s organisation chart; calls on the Secretary-General to remedy this situation promptly in order to provide the new key Directorate with the necessary resources to fulfil its responsibilities;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 a (new)
Subheading 25 a (new)
Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Notes, that the last revision of the Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors from 18 January 2021 does not reflect on possible force majeure circumstances when it comes to cancellations of visits; invites the Bureau to consider accepting national strike as a force majeure circumstance when cancelling an organised group visit, as it is often the case where national strike days are announced at a much later stage after tickets have been purchased and it is extremely onerous to cancel a group visit in the very last moment and be able to recover all the financial costs incurred whilst organising the visit;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 b (new)
Subheading 25 b (new)
JSIS
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 b (new)
Paragraph 111 b (new)
111b. Calls on the Bureau to ensure that the joint sickness insurance scheme (JSIS) shall provide a coherent and individual explanation for declining a reimbursement request; notes that the culture of declining a reimbursement request in pdf format without the possibility to challenge the decision in person imposes certain difficulties on the applicants applying for reimbursement; calls on the Bureau to consider introducing the possibility for local doctors in charge of a treatment of an applicant to talk to the responsible JSIS unit or expert group to explain the treatment and medical benefits; further expresses its wish to improve the user- friendliness of the application enabling a quicker and more direct follow-up of individual requests; requests that the relevant bodies within JSIS duly and regularly take into account recent medical developments and knowledge gains when updating the list of eligible treatments and drugs;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113
Paragraph 113
113. SuggestWelcomes the creation of a Bureau ad-hoc Working Group to carry out a thorough overhaul of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (IMMS) while striking a balance between the freedom of the exercise of the mandate, the reputational risks to Parliament and managerial ethics; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members is carried out before th, following the announcement by the President on 21 November 2022; highlights, that the WG would be tasked to evaluate eand of the current mandate to provide this Working Group with first-hand informreview the IMMS in order to adapt the provisions to the recent legislative developments, new practices of Members and the recommendations from experienced Members on the practical applicthe Internal Auditor while ensuring consistency and legal certainty; highlights, that in its deliberation ofs, the rules governing Parliamead-hoc Working Group shall take duly into and the ability to identify inconsistencies such as the fact that the Members’ attccount transparency, accountability, simplification and sound financial management of funds made available to Members as well as the principle of the independaence on Fridays is not registered in Brussels during plenary weeks or even if a Parliament’s committee official mission is carried out on Thursdayf the parliamentary mandate; and that any proposed changes to the current rules should avoid creating unnecessary administrative burden for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; acknowledges that a consultation of Members is carried out to provide this Working Group with first-hand information from experienced Members on the practical application of the rules governing Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 114
114. Recalls that in previous discharge resolutions Parliament requested a reform of the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA) to make the expenditure of this lump sum more transparent and accountable; noteswelcomes, that following the announcement atby the Bureau meeting of 7 MarchPresident on 4 April 2022 of, the setting up of a Bureau ad-hoc wWorking gGroup on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the opereneral Expenditure Allowance (GEA) was established and tasked with carrying out an evaluation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018; observes that the Bureau, at is meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendments to the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at inn the GEA on the basis of the experience gained during the ninth parliamentary term; highlights, that he ad-hoc Working Group was asked to take duly into account aspects of transparency, accountability and sound financial management of funds made available to Members, bearing in mind the principle of freedom and independence of the parliamentary mandate and the objective to avoid creasting transparency but believes that this reform does not meet the demands expressed in Parliaunnecessary administrative burdens for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; welcomes that on the basis of proposals submitted by the ad-hoc Working Group, the Bureau, at its meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendment’s resolution of 26 March 2019 on the 2017 discharge and in subsequent resolutionsto the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at increasing transparency;