3 Amendments of Georgios STAVRAKAKIS related to 2012/2185(DEC)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes noteWelcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors did not make any critical remarks in its report;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that in 2012, there were three cases dealt by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding whistleblowing and labour disputes in the Agency, and that on 6 July 2011, the Ombudsman opened Case 0917/2011/ (PMC) EIS, which is based on allegations regarding one of the whistleblowerregarding human resources issues;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that in one of the cases referred to in paragraph 4, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal decided in favour of the applicant (judgement of 18 September 2012 in Case F-58/10, Timo Allgeier v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights which on procedural grounds annulled the Agency's decision of 16 October 2009 and ordered it to pay legal fees and damages to Mr Allgeierdamages to the applicant and the costs), while in case F-112/10 (Cornelia Trentea v European Agency for Fundamental Rights) the Tribunal decided in favour of the Agency; in case F-38/12 (BP v European Agency for Fundamental Rights) judgement is pending and ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Agency;