2013/0812(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Changes: 2023/08/03events.date, docs, 2021/12/18events, docs.docs.url, docs, events.type, committees.shadows, 2020/01/19committees, events.docs.url, 2019/07/06council, procedure.subtype, events, procedure.dossier_of_the_committee, activities, procedure.final.url, procedure.subject, committees, docs, other, commission, procedure.title, procedure.summary

View current state | View Changes for this date

Procedure completed

2013/0812(COD) European Police College (CEPOL): seat. Initiative Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden

Role	Committee	Rapporteur	Shadows
Opinion	BUDG
Lead	LIBE	GÁL Kinga (PPE)	GÖNCZ Kinga (S&D), ALFANO Sonia (ALDE), LAMBERT Jean (Verts/ALE), KIRKHOPE Timothy (ECR), DE JONG Dennis (GUE/NGL)

Lead committee dossier: LIBE/7/14751
Legal Basis TFEU 087-p2

Subjects

7.30.05.01 Europol, CEPOL

Links

Activites

2014/05/29 Final act published in Official Journal
- Regulation 2014/543
- OJ L 163 29.05.2014, p. 0005
2014/05/15 Final act signed
2014/05/15 End of procedure in Parliament
#3310
2014/05/06 Council Meeting
2014/05/06 Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
2014/04/16 Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
- T7-0444/2014 summary
  
  The European Parliament adopted by 321 votes to 230, with 18 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 2005/681/JHA establishing the European Police College (CEPOL). The resolution regretted that the European Parliament was not fully involved in the evaluation of the applications and that only one candidate was presented to the relevant committee, although seven applications had been submitted further to the Council Presidency's call in July 2013 for applications to provisionally host the European Police College. Submitting candidatures were Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands and Finland. The political agreement was confirmed at the JHA Council meeting of 8 October 2013. It intended to request more information on the impact assessment of the exact location before taking its final position. The resolution called on the budgetary authorities to ensure that the additional costs relating to the change in the seat of CEPOL will be fully covered by the current host country and by additional Union budget and thus will not adversely affect the regular budget of CEPOL so as not to jeopardise the normal operational needs of CEPOL. In parallel, Parliament adopted its position at first reading following the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendments adopted in plenary are the result of an agreement reached between the European Parliament and the Council. They amended the proposal as follows: Unilateral decision by the United Kingdom on CEPOL: the United Kingdom informed CEPOL that it had unilaterally decided that it no longer wished to host the seat on its territory. In addition to hosting CEPOL, Bramshill also hosts a national police training site of the National Policing Improvement Agency, which the United Kingdom had decided to replace by a new College of Policing to be located elsewhere. The United Kingdom had therefore decided to close the national police training site at Bramshill and to sell the site, indicating that the related costs were high and that no alternative business model to run the site had emerged. The Union and its Member States should mutually assist each other in maintaining CEPOL's operational activities. To that end, the United Kingdom in particular is required to ensure a smooth transition of CEPOL to its new location, without jeopardising the regular budget of CEPOL. Seat: the draft Regulation stipulated that the seat of CEPOL should be in Budapest, Hungary. Review: by 18 months following the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission should submit a report on the effectiveness of this Decision, taking into account the need to ensure CEPOL's status as a separate Union agency. That report should, if appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal to amend this Decision following a thorough cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment. Entry into force: the Regulation should apply from 1 September 2014.
2014/02/27 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
- A7-0146/2014 summary
  
  The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Kinga GÁL (EPP, HU) on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 2005/681/JHA establishing the European Police College (CEPOL). In the draft legislative resolution, Members regretted that the European Parliament was not fully involved in the evaluation of the applications and that only one candidate was presented to the relevant committee, although seven applications had been submitted from Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands and Finland. Members also noted that the political agreement was confirmed at the JHA Council meeting of 8 October 2013. They stated their intent to request more information on the impact assessment of the exact location before calling on Parliament to take its final position. They called on the budgetary authorities to ensure that the additional costs relating to the change in the seat of CEPOL would be fully covered by the United Kingdom and by additional Union budget and thus will not adversely affect the regular budget of CEPOL so as not to jeopardise the normal operational needs of CEPOL. The committee recommended that Parliament’s position in first reading following the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission position as follows: Unilateral decision by the United Kingdom concerning CEPOL: whilst respecting the United Kingdom’s position in not wishing to host CEPOL, Members considered that the principle of loyal cooperation set out in the Treaty and particularly, the obligation in Article 4 TEU to 'take any appropriate measure to ensure fulfilment of the obligations resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union', required the UK government to ensure a smooth transition of CEPOL to its new location, without jeopardising the regular budget of CEPOL. Temporary seat : Members also stressed that the seat of CEPOL is only temporarily to be in Budapest, Hungary. They stated that before CEPOL starts its operational phase at the new location, a headquarters agreement should be concluded, based on a set of provisions provided by the Commission. Ordinary legislative procedure: the committee went on to indicate that the decision to relocate CEPOL needed to be taken in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure, whereby Parliament and Council were equal as co-legislators. The political decision that Council took on 8 October concerning Council's preference for the new CEPOL seat did not have any binding force on Parliament and therefore should not be mentioned in the final text agreed by both Institutions. Members also wanted the new Commission to propose an updated and revised framework for CEPOL. Evaluation: the committee asked that the Commission evaluate, not later than 18 months after the entry into force of the Regulation, the effectiveness of Decision 2005/681/JHA in the light of the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing CEPOL, as well as the new tasks envisaged for CEPOL in the Commission Communication of 27 March 2013 entitled 'Establishing a European Law Enforcement Training Scheme' and if appropriate issue legislative proposals to amend Decision 2005/681/JHA, while at the same time ensuring CEPOL's complete independence. Review: lastly, Members asked the Commission to review the Regulation by 2019 at the latest, including by performing a thorough cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of all possible options, and if appropriate table legislative proposals to amend it, while fully respecting the fundamental need to maintain CEPOL's complete independence. It should be noted that in a minority opinion, some Members voted against the proposal to move Cepol to Budapest, feeling that such a decision, taken unilaterally by a Member State, could create a dangerous institutional precedent in the EU in relation to the location of bodies and agencies.
2014/02/20 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2013/12/10 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2013/11/18 Legislative proposal published
- 17043/2013 summary
  
  PURPOSE: to establish a new seat of the European Police College (CEPOL) in Hungary. BACKGROUND: according to Article 4 of Council Decision 2005/681/JHA establishing the European Police College (CEPOL), CEPOL has its seat in Bramshill, United Kingdom. By letters of 12 December 2012 and 8 February 2013, the United Kingdom informed CEPOL that it no longer wishes to host the seat on its territory. Apart from hosting CEPOL, Bramshill also hosts a national police training site of the National Policing Improvement Agency which the United Kingdom decided to replace by a new College of Policing to be located elsewhere. The United Kingdom has therefore decided to close the national police training site at Bramshill and to sell the site indicating that the related costs were high and no alternative business model to run the site had emerged. In view of this situation, on 8 October 2013, the Council agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This agreement should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHA. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment of locating CEPOL seat in Budapest demonstrates that the proposal complies with the pertinent criteria, allowing the European Parliament and the Council to assess the impact of the relocation and the functioning of CEPOL in Budapest. The assessment addresses those factors in detail that: have a financial impact on the general budget of the European Union and cover social aspects of the work of CEPOL staff members. Moreover, the headquarters offered by Hungary for the purposes of the seat of the CEPOL are situated in the city centre of Budapest. Due to the central location of Budapest, it is easily accessible from most European capitals by cost-effective flights. The building proposed satisfies the requirements laid down by Secretariat of CEPOL. Hungary also proposes to offer, free of charge, a number of services and installations. LEGAL BASIS: Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). CONTENT: this proposal seeks to amend Article 4 of Council Decision 2005/681/JHA and proposes the new seat of CEPOL to be established in Budapest, Hungary. The specific budgetary implications of the proposal relate to estimated savings in CEPOL’s functioning costs per year due to the proposed relocation from Bramshill to Budapest as well as an estimated tentative budgetary calculation of the one-off expenditure of the relocation. The savings amount to EUR 203 500/year. The estimated tentative budgetary calculation of the one-off expenditure for relocating CEPOL from Bramshill to Budapest amounts to EUR 1 875 449.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/', 'title': 'Migration and Home Affairs'}, MALMSTRÖM Cecilia

Documents

Legislative proposal published: 17043/2013
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0146/2014
Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0444/2014
: Regulation 2014/543
: OJ L 163 29.05.2014, p. 0005

Amendments	Dossier
27	2013/0812(COD) 2014/02/04 LIBE 27 amendments... Amendment 10 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) By letters of 12 December 2012 and 8 February 2013, the United Kingdom, against its commitment and legal obligation as per Council Decision 2005/681/JHA and the Headquarters Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and CEPOL on 30 December 2004, informed CEPOL that it no longer wishes to host the seat on its territory. Apart from hosting CEPOL, Bramshill also hosts a national police training site of the National Policing Improvement Agency which the United Kingdom decided to replace by a new College of Policing to be located elsewhere. The United Kingdom has therefore decided to close the national police training site at Bramshill and to sell the site indicating that the related costs were high and no alternative business model to run the site had emerged. Amendment 11 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In view of this situation~~, on 8 October 2013, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest~~ arrangements should be made to find another location for CEPOL as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This agreement should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHA. Amendment 12 # Jean LAMBERT Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In view of this situation, on 8 October 2013, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This agre and of the fundamental need to maintain CEPOL's complete independence, arrangements should be made to ensure functional synergies and contribute to the rationalisation of costs, by moving the seat of CEPOL to the proximity of Europol. Those arrangements should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHA. Amendment 13 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In view of this situation, on 8 October 2013, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This ~~agreement should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHA~~decision was taken, without any prior consultation with the European Commission and the European Parliament, following a specific voting arrangement proposed by the Presidency and accepted by the Member States, under the item "Provisional arrangements to host CEPOL" during the JHA Council informal lunch on 8 October 2013. Seven applications had been submitted further to the Council Presidency's call in July 2013 for applications to provisionally host the European Police College until a long- term solution for the future of the Agency could be found. The Member States submitting candidatures were Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, The Netherlands and Finland. Finland subsequently withdrew its application. The political agreement was confirmed at the JHA Council meeting on the same day, 8 October 2013. Amendment 14 # Kinga GÖNCZ Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a) The Treaty obligations of sincere cooperation and in particular the obligations deriving from Article 4 TEU to 'take any appropriate measure to ensure fulfilment of the obligations resulting from the acts of the Institutions of the Union', require the UK Government to ensure a smooth transition of CEPOL to its new location, including by offering logistical and financial support. Amendment 15 # Jutta HAUG Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a) With the aim of achieving best value for money, realising synergies and spill- over effects through increased contacts between operational and training staff as well as cost savings on administrative services while ensuring independence and functionality of CEPOL, the best option is relocating CEPOL to The Hague, already host for other EU bodies. Amendment 16 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a) It is important to seek the most efficient solutions for the location of agencies, and, whilst fully respecting the fundamental need to maintain CEPOL´s complete independence, it is logical to locate CEPOL in the Hague, being the host for EUROPOL, which is the EU´s main agency for police co-operation; Amendment 17 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a) In its proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA, published on 27 March 2013, the European Commission estimated that the merging of Europol and CEPOL into a single agency, situated at the current headquarters of Europol in The Hague would create important synergies and efficiency gains, assessing savings at the level of €17.2 million over the period 2015-2020 and 14 full time staff equivalent (FTE). Amendment 18 # Jutta HAUG Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 b (new) (3b) Before CEPOL starts its operational phase at the new location, a headquarter agreement should be concluded, based on a set of provisions put together by the European Commission. Amendment 19 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 b (new) (3b) Given the links between the tasks of Europol and CEPOL, a close cooperation between the two agencies would enhance the effectiveness of operational activity, the relevance of training and the efficiency of Union police cooperation. A relocated seat for CEPOL should therefore be in proximity of Europol seat, in order strengthen the links and create synergies between the two fields of the Agencies. Contacts between the operational and the training staff would help identify training needs, thus increasing the relevance and focus of EU training, to the benefit of EU police cooperation overall. Amendment 20 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 c (new) (3c) The European Commission had estimated that the relocation of around 40 staff from CEPOL's current site in Bramshill, UK, to the Europol site in The Hague, the Netherlands, is expected to result in limited one-off costs, estimated at €30 000. Potential savings and synergies or efficiency gains are particularly important in an economic context where national and EU resources are scarce and where resources to strengthen EU law enforcement training might not otherwise be available. Amendment 21 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Draft regulation Recital 3 d (new) (3d) As underlined by the European Commission, the draft Regulation amending the CEPOL Decision does not refer to the provisional relocation of the seat of CEPOL, but goes much further, as it is in direct opposition to the Commission's proposal for the Europol Regulation, including the merger of CEPOL into Europol, which has been and remains on the table since 27 March 2013. Amendment 22 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 e (new) (3e) The relocation of CEPOL as proposed does not achieve the functional and operational reform that would match the goals of rationalisation and operational improvement for agencies. It has adverse budgetary effects, as it does not achieve functional synergies and cost savings. It is consequently not in line with the recommendations set out in the Common Approach on decentralised agencies endorsed by the 3 Institutions. Amendment 23 # Gianni VATTIMO Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 f (new) (3f) The European Parliament in its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012), has expressed a series of serious concerns on the situation in Hungary and issued a series of detailed recommendations to the Hungarian authorities on the fundamental law, on checks and balances, on the independence of the judiciary, on the electoral reform, on media and pluralism, on the respect for fundamental rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, on freedom of religion or belief and recognition of churches. The resolution calls on the Hungarian authorities to inform Parliament, the Commission, the Presidencies of the Council and of the European Council, and the Council of Europe regarding implementation of such recommendations. In the absence of such information by the Hungarian authorities and of an evaluation by institutions involved on whether the Hungarian authorities have effectively followed up the EP and EU recommendations, it is not possible to decide for a relocation of CEPOL to Hungary, notably in consideration of the extremely short timeframe imposed by the Council for the adoption of the Regulation. For these reasons, an alternative relocation solution has to be found, or alternatively more time should be granted so to allow for such information to be provided, make an evaluation and take a decision; Amendment 24 # Jutta HAUG Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA Article 4 The seat of CEPOL shall be in ~~Budapest, Hungary~~The Hague, The Netherlands. Amendment 25 # Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA Article 4 The seat of CEPOL shall be in ~~Budapest, Hungary~~The Hague, the Netherlands. Amendment 26 # Gianni VATTIMO Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA Article 4 The seat of CEPOL shall be in ~~Budapest, Hungary~~the United Kingdom. Amendment 27 # Jean LAMBERT Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Decision 2005/681/JHA article 1–paragraph 1–subparagraph 1 The seat of CEPOL shall be in ~~Budapest, Hungary~~The Hague, The Netherlands. Amendment 28 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA Article 4 The seat of CEPOL shall be in ~~Budapest, Hungary~~The Hague, The Netherlands. Amendment 29 # Jean LAMBERT Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 It shall apply from (…...) 2014 until 31 December 2016. Amendment 30 # Jean LAMBERT Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new) The Commission shall without delay and at the latest six months after the date specified in Article 2, paragraph 2, present a proposal for an amendment of Decision 2005/681/JHA regarding a permanent CEPOL seat after 31 December 2016. Amendment 4 # Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY Draft legislative resolution Citation 4 ~~– having regard to the common accord of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 8 October 2013,~~deleted Amendment 5 # Kinga GÖNCZ Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Regrets that the European Parliament was not fully involved in the evaluation of the applications and that only one candidate was presented to the relevant committee, curtailing the European Parliament of its codecision role regarding the selection of the new seat. Amendment 6 # Kinga GÖNCZ Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the budgetary authorities to ensure that the additional costs relating to the change in the seat of CEPOL will be fully covered ~~and will~~by the current host country and by additional EU budget and thus will not come to the detriment of the regular budget of CEPOL so as not to jeopardise the normal operational needs of CEPOL. Amendment 7 # Gianni VATTIMO Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the budgetary authorities to ensure that the additional costs relating to the change in the seat of CEPOL will be fully covered by the United Kingdom and will not to jeopardise the normal operational needs of CEPOL. Amendment 8 # Gianni VATTIMO Proposal for a regulation - The European Parliament rejects the proposal. Amendment 9 # Gianni VATTIMO Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) ~~By letters of 12 December 2012 and 8 February 2013, the United Kingdom informed CEPOL~~In violation of its legal obligations and commitments pursuant to both Council Decision 2005/681/JHA and the Headquarters Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and CEPOL on 30 December 2004, by letters of 12 December 2012 and 8 February 2013, the United Kingdom informed CEPOL – instead of informing the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission - that it had unilaterally decided that it no longer wishesd to host the seat on its territory. Apart from hosting CEPOL, Bramshill also hosts a national police training site of the National Policing Improvement Agency which the United Kingdom decided to replace by a new College of Policing to be located elsewhere. The United Kingdom has therefore decided to close the national police training site at Bramshill and to sell the site indicating that the related costs were high and no alternative business model to run the site had emerged. The UK government did not provide reasons to justify why it could not relocate CEPOL somewhere else on the UK territory, instead of expelling it "de facto". source: PE-528.005

Amendments

Dossier

2013/0812(COD)

2014/02/04 LIBE 27 amendments...

Amendment 10 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) By letters of 12 December 2012 and 8 February 2013, the United Kingdom, against its commitment and legal obligation as per Council Decision 2005/681/JHA and the Headquarters Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and CEPOL on 30 December 2004, informed CEPOL that it no longer wishes to host the seat on its territory. Apart from hosting CEPOL, Bramshill also hosts a national police training site of the National Policing Improvement Agency which the United Kingdom decided to replace by a new College of Policing to be located elsewhere. The United Kingdom has therefore decided to close the national police training site at Bramshill and to sell the site indicating that the related costs were high and no alternative business model to run the site had emerged.

Amendment 11 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) In view of this situation~~, on 8 October 2013, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest~~ arrangements should be made to find another location for CEPOL as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This agreement should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHA.

Amendment 12 #

Jean LAMBERT

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

Amendment 13 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) In view of this situation, on 8 October 2013, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This ~~agreement should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHA~~decision was taken, without any prior consultation with the European Commission and the European Parliament, following a specific voting arrangement proposed by the Presidency and accepted by the Member States, under the item "Provisional arrangements to host CEPOL" during the JHA Council informal lunch on 8 October 2013. Seven applications had been submitted further to the Council Presidency's call in July 2013 for applications to provisionally host the European Police College until a long- term solution for the future of the Agency could be found. The Member States submitting candidatures were Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, The Netherlands and Finland. Finland subsequently withdrew its application. The political agreement was confirmed at the JHA Council meeting on the same day, 8 October 2013.

Amendment 14 #

Kinga GÖNCZ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) The Treaty obligations of sincere cooperation and in particular the obligations deriving from Article 4 TEU to 'take any appropriate measure to ensure fulfilment of the obligations resulting from the acts of the Institutions of the Union', require the UK Government to ensure a smooth transition of CEPOL to its new location, including by offering logistical and financial support.

Amendment 15 #

Jutta HAUG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) With the aim of achieving best value for money, realising synergies and spill- over effects through increased contacts between operational and training staff as well as cost savings on administrative services while ensuring independence and functionality of CEPOL, the best option is relocating CEPOL to The Hague, already host for other EU bodies.

Amendment 16 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) It is important to seek the most efficient solutions for the location of agencies, and, whilst fully respecting the fundamental need to maintain CEPOL´s complete independence, it is logical to locate CEPOL in the Hague, being the host for EUROPOL, which is the EU´s main agency for police co-operation;

Amendment 17 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) In its proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA, published on 27 March 2013, the European Commission estimated that the merging of Europol and CEPOL into a single agency, situated at the current headquarters of Europol in The Hague would create important synergies and efficiency gains, assessing savings at the level of €17.2 million over the period 2015-2020 and 14 full time staff equivalent (FTE).

Amendment 18 #

Jutta HAUG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 b (new)

(3b) Before CEPOL starts its operational phase at the new location, a headquarter agreement should be concluded, based on a set of provisions put together by the European Commission.

Amendment 19 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 b (new)

(3b) Given the links between the tasks of Europol and CEPOL, a close cooperation between the two agencies would enhance the effectiveness of operational activity, the relevance of training and the efficiency of Union police cooperation. A relocated seat for CEPOL should therefore be in proximity of Europol seat, in order strengthen the links and create synergies between the two fields of the Agencies. Contacts between the operational and the training staff would help identify training needs, thus increasing the relevance and focus of EU training, to the benefit of EU police cooperation overall.

Amendment 20 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 c (new)

(3c) The European Commission had estimated that the relocation of around 40 staff from CEPOL's current site in Bramshill, UK, to the Europol site in The Hague, the Netherlands, is expected to result in limited one-off costs, estimated at €30 000. Potential savings and synergies or efficiency gains are particularly important in an economic context where national and EU resources are scarce and where resources to strengthen EU law enforcement training might not otherwise be available.

Amendment 21 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Draft regulation
Recital 3 d (new)

(3d) As underlined by the European Commission, the draft Regulation amending the CEPOL Decision does not refer to the provisional relocation of the seat of CEPOL, but goes much further, as it is in direct opposition to the Commission's proposal for the Europol Regulation, including the merger of CEPOL into Europol, which has been and remains on the table since 27 March 2013.

Amendment 22 #

Sonia ALFANO, Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 e (new)

(3e) The relocation of CEPOL as proposed does not achieve the functional and operational reform that would match the goals of rationalisation and operational improvement for agencies. It has adverse budgetary effects, as it does not achieve functional synergies and cost savings. It is consequently not in line with the recommendations set out in the Common Approach on decentralised agencies endorsed by the 3 Institutions.

Amendment 23 #

Gianni VATTIMO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 f (new)

(3f) The European Parliament in its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012), has expressed a series of serious concerns on the situation in Hungary and issued a series of detailed recommendations to the Hungarian authorities on the fundamental law, on checks and balances, on the independence of the judiciary, on the electoral reform, on media and pluralism, on the respect for fundamental rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, on freedom of religion or belief and recognition of churches. The resolution calls on the Hungarian authorities to inform Parliament, the Commission, the Presidencies of the Council and of the European Council, and the Council of Europe regarding implementation of such recommendations. In the absence of such information by the Hungarian authorities and of an evaluation by institutions involved on whether the Hungarian authorities have effectively followed up the EP and EU recommendations, it is not possible to decide for a relocation of CEPOL to Hungary, notably in consideration of the extremely short timeframe imposed by the Council for the adoption of the Regulation. For these reasons, an alternative relocation solution has to be found, or alternatively more time should be granted so to allow for such information to be provided, make an evaluation and take a decision;

Amendment 24 #

Jutta HAUG