Activites

• 2013/04/17 Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
  • T7-0162/2013 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a decision on discharge to be granted to the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2011. The vote on the decision to grant discharge covers the closure of the accounts (in accordance with Annex VI, Article 5(1) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure). Noting that the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of FRA for the financial year 2011 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, Parliament adopted a resolution containing a number of recommendations that need to be taken into account when the discharge is granted, in addition to the general recommendations that appear in the draft resolution on performance, financial management and control of EU agencies: Financing, budget and financial management: Parliament recalls that the Foundation’s budget was EUR 20.18 million, and that the initial contribution of the Union to the Agency's budget for 2011 was EUR 19.978 million. Implementation rate of appropriations and carryovers: it acknowledges that in 2011, the Agency committed 100% of the appropriations received. It observes, however, that in terms of paid appropriations, the Agency's execution rate stands at only 27% for operational expenditure. Members call on the Agency to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payment in the case of administrative and operational expenditure. Harassment: Parliament notes that in 2012, there were three cases dealt with by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding an allegation of psychological harassment. It states that the Agency did not bring disciplinary proceedings against two members of staff for alleged psychological harassment due to the lack of impartiality on the part of the investigator and his refusal to guarantee the anonymity of the witnesses and ordered it to pay damages to the applicant and the costs. It urges the Agency, given the risks at stake, as far as its reputation is concerned, to inform the discharge authority in detail on the rules of procedure, legal framework and hearing modalities established for the launch and conduction of internal investigations and the protection of witnesses' anonymity in the occurrence of such internal investigations. Lastly, Parliament made a series of observations as regards FRA’s recruitment policies and internal audit procedures.

• 2013/04/16 Debate in Parliament
• 2013/03/22 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • A7-0102/2013 summary

    The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY (ADLE, NL) on discharge to be granted to the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2011. Noting that the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of FRA for the financial year 2011 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, Members approve the closure of FRA’s accounts. However, they make a number of recommendations that need to be taken into account when the discharge is granted, in addition to the general recommendations that appear in the draft resolution on performance, financial management and control of EU agencies: Financing, budget and financial management: Members recall that the Foundation’s budget was EUR 20.18 million, and that the initial contribution of the Union to the Agency's budget for 2011 was EUR 19.978 million. Implementation rate of appropriations and carryovers: Members acknowledge that in 2011, the Agency committed 100% of the appropriations received. They observe, however, that in terms of paid appropriations, the Agency's execution rate stands at only 27% for operational expenditure. They call on the Agency to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payment in the case of administrative and operational expenditure. Lastly, Members made a series of observations as regards FRA’s recruitment policies and internal audit procedures. Members also highlight that there were cases of alleged psychological harassment within the Agency.

• 2013/03/19 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2013/02/27 Amendments tabled in committee
  • PE497.850
• 2013/02/01 Document attached to the procedure
  • 05753/2013 summary

    Having examined the revenue and expenditure accounts for the financial year 2011 and the balance sheet at 31 December 2011 of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, as well as the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2011, accompanied by the Agency's replies to the Court's observations, the Council recommends the European Parliament to give a discharge to the Director of the Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2011. No comments were made in the recommendation.

• 2013/01/30 Committee draft report
  • PE497.849
• 2012/09/13 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2012/09/05 Court of Auditors: opinion, report
  • OJ C 388 15.12.2012, p. 0196
  • N7-0033/2013 summary

    PURPOSE: presentation of the EU Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), together with the Agency’s reply. CONTENT: in accordance with the tasks conferred on the Court of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court presents to the European Parliament and to the Council, in the context of the discharge procedure, a Statement of Assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts of each institution, body or agency of the EU, and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them, on the basis of an independent external audit. This audit concerned, amongst others, the annual accounts of the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). In the Court’s opinion, the Agency’s Annual Accounts fairly present, in all material respects, its financial position as of 31 December 2011 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Regulation. The report confirms that the Agency’s 2011 budget amounted to EUR 20.18 million and that the number of staff employed by the Agency at the end of the year was 94. The Court also considers that the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year ended 31 December 2011 are, in all material respects, legal and regular. The Court’s report makes no specific observation on the financial and budgetary management of the Agency. Lastly, the Court of Auditors’ report contains a summary of the Agency’s activities in 2011. This is focused on the following: various activities in the framework of the RAXEN network (European Information Network on Racism and Xenophobia and FRALEX (legal experts network); publication of reports and research; meetings with Member States and European and international institutions.

• 2012/07/25 Non-legislative basic document
  • COM(2012)0436 summary

    PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011, as part of the 2011 discharge procedure. Analysis of the accounts of the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). CONTENT: this Commission document sets out the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 as prepared on the basis of the information presented by the institutions, organisations and bodies of the EU, in accordance with Article 129 (2) of the Financial Regulation applicable to the EU's General Budget, including the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). In 2011, the tasks and budget of this agency were as follows: description of FRA's tasks: the Agency, which is located in Vienna, was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007. Its main objective is to provide the relevant authorities of the Union and its Member States with assistance and expertise when implementing Union law relating to fundamental rights. FRA's budget for the 2011 financial year: the Agency’s budget for 2011, as presented in the Commission document on the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union, gives the following figures: forecasted income budget: EUR 22 million; entitlements established: EUR 22 million; amounts received: EUR 22 million; outstanding: EUR 0 million. The complete version of FRA's final accounts may be found at the following address: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/about_fra/what_we_do/finance/finance_en.htm

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/', 'title': 'Budget'}, ŠEMETA Algirdas

Documents

• Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2012)0436
• Court of Auditors: opinion, report: OJ C 388 15.12.2012, p. 0196
• Court of Auditors: opinion, report: N7-0033/2013
• Committee draft report: PE497.849
• Document attached to the procedure: 05753/2013
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0162/2013
• Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.850
• Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0102/2013

Amendments

Dossier

31

2012/2185(DEC) 2013/01/23 LIBE 7 amendments... Amendment 1 # Monica MACOVEI Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Takes note that the Agency's final budget amounted EUR 20 180 000 for the financial year 2011 with an Union contribution representing EUR 19 978 200; Amendment 2 # Monica MACOVEI Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Acknowledges that in 2011 the Agency committed 100 % of the appropriations received; observes however that in terms of paid appropriations the Agency's execution rate stands at 75% under Title 2 and at only 27% under Title 3; calls on the Agency to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payment in the case of administrative and operational expenditure; Amendment 3 # Monica MACOVEI Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Congratulates the Agency for the factTakes note that the Court of Auditors did not make any critical remarks in its report; Amendment 4 # Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Generally considers that there should beinvites the European Court of Auditors to further focus on auditing the Agency's sound financial management of the Agency, namely the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Agency has used its appropriations in carrying out its responsibilities. Amendment 5 # Monica MACOVEI Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Notes with concern that the European Ombudsman has launched a investigation on 6 July 20111 as regards harassment following of the complaint a staff member of the Agency; underlines that already in 2009 the European Data Protection Supervisor mentioned on the case of another Agency's staff member that it has strong elements of harassment; __________________ 1 ref. 0917/2011/(PMC)EIS Amendment 6 # Monica MACOVEI Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Is also deeply concerned by another case of harassment against a staff member responsible of overseeing all matters relating to public procurement; notes that the case is allegedly related to the backdating of a contract to disguise the illegality of the carry-over of appropriations to which the staff member opposed; observes that after an internal procedure the Director concluded that there was no evidence of harassment by decision of 16 October 2009; emphasizes the European Union Civil Service Tribunal's judgment of 18 September 2012 which annuls the decision of 16 October 2009 of the Agency due to the lack of impartiality on the part of the investigator and his refusal to guarantee the anonymity of the witnesses, and orders the Agency to pay legal fees and damages to the victim; is of the opinion that the amount for damages should be recovered from the Director who confirmed the investigator's conclusions which were annulled by the Tribunal; calls moreover on the Director to identify the individuals responsible; if no action is taken this would lead to reputational risks for the Agency and would diminish trust in the Agency; urges the Agency to keep the discharge authority informed on this matter; Amendment 7 # Monica MACOVEI Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Has been informed that OLAF carried out a visit to the premises of the Agency in December 2012; expects to receive information on ongoing administrative investigations related to the Agency; source: PE-504.051 2013/02/27 CONT 24 amendments... Amendment 1 # Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. ...Grants the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011; Amendment 10 # Monica MACOVEI Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that in 2012, there were three cases dealt by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding whistleblowing, harassment 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 regardingexpressed by one of the whistleblowers; Amendment 11 # Georgios STAVRAKAKIS Motion for a resolution 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 12 # Monica MACOVEI Motion for a resolution 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 in Case F-58/10 (judgement of 18 September 2012 in Case F-58/10, Timo Allgeier v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights which) and annulled the Agency's decision of 16 October 2009 and ordered inot to bring disciplinary proceedings against two pay legal fees and damages to Mr Allgeier), 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)members of staff for alleged psychological harassment due to the lack of impartiality on the part of the investigator and his refusal to guarantee the anonymity of the witnesses and ordered it to pay damages to the applicant and the costs; notes that in case F-112/10 the Tribunal decided in favour of the Agency but the applicant brought an appeal before the General Court against the judgment while in case F-38/12 judgement is pending; Amendment 13 # Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Notes that in one of thethe first 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 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 the second 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 pendingjudgement of 11 December 2012) the Tribunal decided in favour of the Agency, after which the applicant lodged an appeal; in case F-38/12 a judgement is pending, however, the Court dismissed the application for interim measures in this case by its order of 14 June 2012; Amendment 14 # Georgios STAVRAKAKIS Motion for a resolution 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; Amendment 15 # Monica MACOVEI Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Given the reputational risks at stake, urges the Agency to inform the discharge authority in details on the rules of procedure, legal framework and hearing modalities established for the launch and conduction of internal investigations and the protection of witnesses' anonymity in the occurrence of such internal investigations; (Justification: the explanations provided by the Executive Director of the Agency on this particular issue at the hearing on the 2011 discharge of the decentralised agencies organised by the Budgetary Control Committee on 24 January 2013 were not informative enough and require further details) Amendment 16 # Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Is concerned by the factNotes that in December 2012, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Agency as a result of allegations made by one of the applicants in the above-mentioned court cases; requests that the Agency inform the discharge authority on the results of both the OLAF investigation and the Ombudsman case; Amendment 17 # Philip BRADBOURN, Andrea ČEŠKOVÁ, Ryszard CZARNECKI Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Is concerned by the fact that in December 2012, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Agency as a result of allegations made by one of the applicants in the above-mentioned court cases; requestires that the Agency inform the discharge authority on the results of both the OLAF investigation and the Ombudsman case; Amendment 18 # Monica MACOVEI Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Acknowledges that accordingevery two years the Agency, it takes the issue of staff well- being and satisfaction launches an anonymous well- being survey among staff; notes in particular from the 2012 survery seriously and, every two years, launches an anonymous well-being survey among staff; acknowledges, moreover, that it hasthat concerns have been raised regarding the handling of in-house conflicts and the attention paid to the well-being of the staff; takes note that the Agency introduced an anti-harassment policy and a network of confidential counsellors in order to minimise situations of conflict in the workplace and to address such allegationsthem in a comprehensive manner; Amendment 19 # Inés AYALA SENDER Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. AcknowledgNotes that according to the Agency, it takes the issue of staff well- being and satisfaction very seriously and, every two years, launches an anonymous well-being survey among staff; acknowledgesnotes also, moreover, that it has introduced an anti-harassment policy and a network of confidential counsellors in order to minimise situations of conflict in the workplace and to address such allegations in a comprehensive manner; urges the Agency to act on the recommendations made by the Court of Auditors with regard to the problems detected and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that these problems do not reoccur under any circumstances; Amendment 2 # Inés AYALA SENDER Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. ...Grants the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011; Amendment 20 # Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Notes that on 12 and 14 December 2012, the Agency presented to its Executive Board and to its Management Board the draft rules on whistleblowing; notes that the decision was taken to adopt those rules formally after consultation with the Commission services; notes that in the meantime, the Agency followsadopted the principles of the Commission guidelines; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority wheon the rules will be adoptedimplementation of the rules; Amendment 21 # Monica MACOVEI Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Notes that on 12 and 14 December 2012, the Agency presented to its Executive Board and to its Management Board the draft rules on whistleblowing; notes that the decision was taken to adopt those rules formally after consultation with the Commission services; notes that in the meantime, the Agency follows the principles of the Commission guidelines; apply and calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority when the rules will be adopted and implemented; Amendment 22 # Philip BRADBOURN, Ryszard CZARNECKI Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Is convinced that merger of the European Institute for Gender Equality and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should be urgently considered in order to avoid duplication of tasks and to reduce overhead costs; Amendment 23 # Monica MACOVEI Motion for a resolution Subheading 3 a (new) Transparency Amendment 24 # Monica MACOVEI, Petri SARVAMAA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Observes that some of the curriculum vitae and the declaration of interest of the Management Board members are available on the Agency's website; notes that regarding the Executive Director and the management team only curriculum vitae are available; calls on the Agency to make the missing information publicly available and to inform the discharge authority of the progress made on this matter as soon as possible; Amendment 3 # Philip BRADBOURN, Ryszard CZARNECKI Proposal for a decision 1 Paragraph 1 1. ...Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011; Amendment 4 # Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1. ...Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2011; Amendment 5 # Inés AYALA SENDER Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1. ...Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2011; Amendment 6 # Philip BRADBOURN, Ryszard CZARNECKI Proposal for a decision 2 Paragraph 1 1. ...Postpones the closure of the accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2011; Amendment 7 # Georgios STAVRAKAKIS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Takes noteWelcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors did not make any critical remarks in its report; Amendment 8 # Monica MACOVEI, Petri SARVAMAA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Acknowledges that in 2011 the Agency committed 100 % of the appropriations received; observes however that in terms of paid appropriations the Agency's execution rate stands at 75% under Title II (Administrative expenditure) and at only 27% under Title III (Operational expenditure); calls on the Agency to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payment in the case of administrative and operational expenditure; Amendment 9 # Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Motion for a resolution 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 Aallegation of psychological harassment, rejection of an application for a post and a non-extension of a contract of an agencyt, and that on 6 July 2011, the Ombudsman opened Case 0917/2011/ (PMC) EIS, which is based on allegations regarding one of the whistleblowerfailure to investigate properly the complainant's allegations of psychological harassment and incorrect storage of documents; source: PE-497.850

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)