2021/2146(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Stresses that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the 'Agency') is by large the agency that has been receiving more significant budget increases in the last years; recalls that the budget of the Agency skyrocketed from EUR 118 million in 2011 to EUR 460 million in 2020, and to an annual average of EUR 900 million for the 2021-2027 period; considers that this represents a disproportionate unbalance compared to other bodies, offices and agencies in the area of justice and home affairs;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation on the Agency over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks; underlines that the outcome of the investigation was still pending by early December 2021; reminds that the Ombudsman conducted two own- initiative inquiries into the complaints mechanism of the Agency and on the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations; reiterates the concern on the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group andcalls that on 15 June 2021, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been delay on the part of the Agency in implementing the important changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2019/18961a; notes that based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman issued nine suggestions for improvement to the Agency; reiterates the concern on the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; recalls that this report revealed that the Agency’s activities were not sufficiently developed to provide an effective support to Member States and Schengen associated countries and that the Agency did not provide information about the impact or cost of its activities; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group, which has identified deficiencies – among others – in the Agency’s mechanisms to monitor, report and assess fundamental rights situations, and has made recommendations for improvement; highlights the personal responsibility of the executive director in relation to those deficiencies; recalls also the conclusions of the 13 internal inquiries by ~~its~~the management board of the Agency; welcomes the Agency’s report on the implementation of the conclusions of the extraordinary management board meeting of 6 October 2021 which reflects the 71 recommendations received from the aforementioned reports and audits; notes that the Agency implemented 59 of those actions; calls urgently on the Agency to take all necessary measures towards implementing all the remaining recommendations and to report to the discharge authority over the progress achieved; _________________ 1aRegulation (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 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation on the Agency over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks; further recalls the unprecedented examination of human rights violations at Union borders; underlines that the outcome of the investigation was still pending by early December 2021; reminds that the Ombudsman conducted two own-initiative inquiries into the effectiveness and transparency of the complaints mechanism of the Agency and on the ~~compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations; reiterates the concern on~~role and independence of the fundamental rights officer, as well as into the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations and its ability to ensure accountability; recalls that the Ombudsman’s first inquiry was followed by nine suggestions for improvement to the Agency, including suggestions on how to make it easier for potential victims of fundamental rights violations to be aware of redress possibilities and to report incidents; notes the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’, but remains concerned that the work of the Agency beyond Union borders remains barely scrutinised; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group and the conclusions of the 13 internal inquiries by its management board; ~~welcomes~~regrets that the Agency’s report on the implementation of the conclusions of the extraordinary management board meeting of 6 October 2021 which reflects the 71 recommendations received from the aforementioned reports and audits is not published; notes that the Agency implemented 59 of those actions; calls on the Agency to take all necessary measures towards implementing all the remaining recommendations and to report to the discharge authority over the progress achieved;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation on the Agency; underlines that the outcome of the investigation was still pending by early December 2021; reminds that the Ombudsman conducted two own-initiative inquiries into the complaints mechanism of the Agency and on the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations; notes that following those inquiries no instances of maladministration were found and no further inquiries were justified; reiterates the concern on the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group ~~and~~which found no evidence of the Agency's involvement in any violation of human rights, as well as the conclusions of the 13 internal inquiries by its management board; welcomes the Agency’s report on the implementation of the conclusions of the extraordinary management board meeting of 6 October 2021 which reflects the 71 recommendations received from the aforementioned reports and audits; notes that the Agency implemented 59 of those actions; calls on the Agency to take all necessary measures towards implementing all the remaining recommendations and to report to the discharge authority over the progress achieved;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation ~~on the Agency; underlines that the outcome of the investigation was still pending by early December 2021; remind~~in 2019 involving the Agency; notes that the Ombudsman conducted two own-initiative inquiries into the complaints mechanism of the Agency and on the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations; ~~reiterates the concern on~~notes that, according to the Agency’s reply, it is fully committed to and cooperates closely with the Ombudsman, as well as with the European Anti-Fraud Office and Parliament, on fundamental righs matters; notes the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group and the conclusions of the 13 internal inquiries by its management board; welcomes the Agency’s report on the implementation of the conclusions of the extraordinary management board meeting of 6 October 2021 which reflects the 71 recommendations received from the aforementioned reports and audits; notes that the Agency implemented 59 of those actions; calls on the Agency to take all necessary measures towards implementing all the remaining recommendations and to report to the discharge authority over the progress achieved;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) "did not find conclusive evidence on the direct performance of pushbacks and/or collective expulsions by Frontex in the serious incident cases that could be examined by the FSWG", but concluded "that the Agency found evidence in support of allegations of fundamental rights violations in Member States with which it had a joint operation, but failed to address and follow-up on these violations promptly, vigilantly and effectively"; notes that the "Agency also failed to adequately respond to internal observations about certain cases of probable fundamental rights violations in Member States" and "that Frontex generally disregarded" reports from "several reliable actors"; notes that the FSWG “found deficiencies in Frontex’s mechanisms to monitor, report and assess fundamental rights situations and developments, and makes concrete recommendations for improvement", but "also identified gaps in the framework of cooperation with Member States, which may hamper the fulfilment of Frontex’s fundamental rights obligations"; notes that the FSWG expressed concern "about the lack of cooperation of the Executive Director to ensure compliance with some of the provisions of the EBCG Regulation, notably on fundamental rights"; notes that the "FSWG takes the position that the Management Board should have played a much more proactive role in acknowledging the serious risk of fundamental rights violations and in taking action to ensure that Frontex fulfils its negative and positive fundamental rights obligations as enshrined in the Regulation"; notes that the FSWG welcomes the new internal procedures and rules developed by the Agency in the months preceding the report to comply with the Regulation but urges the executive director and the management board "to further increase the fundamental rights compliance of the Agency by reconsidering its internal structures and communication, as well as the cooperation with the host Member States"; notes that the FSWG “highlights the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission, outside their role in the Management Board as well";

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following Parliament’s resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, namely: (1) the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors; regrets the fact that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 and that none of the monitors had been appointed back then; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; deeply regrets the delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors ~~and recalls that this poses a serious risk~~; agrees with the Court opinion that this poses a serious risk to operations and reputation of the Agency; deeply deplores the fact that that despite repeated calls of Parliament and a significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the fundamental rights officer still lacks adequate human resources and is therefore clearly hampered to proper~~ations and reputation of the Agency~~ly conduct the tasks that he is entrusted with; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staff, in particular in relation to further developing and implementing the Agency’s strategy to monitor and ensure the protection of fundamental rights; welcomes the cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights towards completing the recruitment of the remainding fundamental rights monitors and preparing the legal and operational framework for their deployment on the ground; (2) the appointment of the three deputy executive directors in 2021; and (3) the update of the Standard Operating Procedure for Serious Incident Reporting in May 2021; reminds the Agency of the importance of adhering to the Staff Regulations;

Amendment 16 #

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Agency’s efforts following Parliament’s resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, namely: (1) the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors; ~~regret~~notes the fact that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; deeply regrets the delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors and recalls that this poses a serious risk to operations and reputation of the Agency; welcomes the cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights towards completing the recruitment of the reminding fundamental rights monitors; (2) the appointment of the three deputy executive directors in 2021; and (3) the update of the Standard Operating Procedure for Serious Incident Reporting in May 2021;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following the Parliament’s re~~solution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of~~commendations made in the first and the dsec~~ision~~ ond discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, namely: (1) the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors; regrets the fact that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; deeply regrets the delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors and recalls that this poses a serious risk to operations and reputation of the Agency; welcomes the cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights towards completing the recruitment of the reminding fundamental rights monitors; (2) the appointment of the three deputy executive directors in 2021; and (3) the update of the Standard Operating Procedure for Serious Incidenreport for the financial year 2019; recalls the conditions formulated in the second discharge report of the Agency for the financial year 2019 for release of a budgetary reserve; reminds that the reserve has not been made in the budget of the Agency for 2022; ask nevertheless the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the progress made towards fulfilling the six conditions formulated in that Rreport~~ing in May 2021~~;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following Parliament’s resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, namely: (1) the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors; regrets the fact that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; deeply regrets the delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors and recalls that this poses a serious risk to operations and reputation of the Agency; notes that Parliament has been calling for years for those posts to be filled as soon as possible in order to comply with the legal obligation set out in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; underlines that the executive director of the Agency declared in front of Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs that those posts would be filled before the end of 2021; welcomes the cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights towards completing the recruitment of the reminding fundamental rights monitors; (2) the appointment of the three deputy executive directors in 2021; and (3) the update of the Standard Operating Procedure for Serious Incident Reporting in May 2021;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 201920 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; ~~note~~regrets that the budget of the Agency was increased from EUR 446 million to EUR 495 million (+ 11 %); takes note of the increase in the Agency's staff in 2020 from 749 to 1 234 (+ 64,8 %);

Amendment 20 #

Nadine MORANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Regrets that the Agency upgraded 47 AST posts to grade AD7 or higher, without the legal authority to do so and the subsequent need to withdraw the 47 job offers, which exposed the Agency an unnecessary risk of reputational damage and litigation; reiterates the importance of the principle of legality in conducting all administrative and operational activities; recalls however that the allocation of posts at the appropriate grade is essential for the optimal functioning of the Agency; calls on the Commission to engage into an active dialogue with the Agency over upcoming establishment plans, taking into consideration the specifics of the operational nature of the Agency and ensure that future posts are allocated at the appropriate grade corresponding to the post requirements;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes further that one action brought in May 2021 was brought on behalf of two asylum-seekers - an unaccompanied minor and a woman - who 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; is shocked that the applicants were also victims of other pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; notes that another action was brought in October 2021 on behalf of a Syrian family that was returned from Greece to Turkey on a flight operated by the Agency and the Greek authorities;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes with concern that, according to the Court, Amending budget No 1/2020, which increased the Union funding to the Agency by EUR 10 million and was adopted by the budgetary authority in April 2020, is not visible in the Agency’s budgetary accounts; agrees with the Court opinion that this reduces transparency as it makes it harder to see how much Union funding was available to the Agency in 2020 and how that amount changed over time;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Expresses serious concerns regarding the fact that an interpreter employed by the Agency was assaulted by Greek border guards in Greece alongside at least hundred third-country nationals and was then forced, together with other persons, across the border into Turkey; highlights that this episode is another credible evidence of the systematic violations of fundamental rights that occur in Greece and should lead the Agency to suspend its operations in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; expresses serious concerns at the numerous serious incident reports reporting violations of fundamental rights in Greece and Lithuania and the absence of appropriate actions taken by the executive director to address those violations, including by following all the recommendations of the fundamental rights officer and suspending operations in line with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896;

Amendment 25 #

Nadine MORANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Agency to swiftly adopt a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to suspend the Agency's operations supporting return-related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;deleted

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. CRecalls that the Agency is mandated to control borders while ensuring that border controls are conducted in accordance with the fundamental rights applicable in the Union, including those enshrined in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Regulation (EU) 2016/3991a and Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; calls on the Agency to swiftly adopt a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to suspend the Agency's operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77 23.3.2016, p. 1).

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. CRegrets that it has to be repeated and calls on the Agency to ~~swift~~immediately adopt a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to suspend the Agency's operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2019 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; notes that the budget of the Agency was increased from EUR 446 million to EUR 495 million (+ 11 %); takes note of the increase in the Agency's staff in 2020 from 749 to 1 234 (+ 64,8 %);

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Call~~Expects on the Agency to swiftly adopt a detailed procedure ~~for~~setting out different steps of the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to suspend the Agency's operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC ~~and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union~~; calls on the Commission to support the Agency in that regard;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Welcomes any and all evaluations, inquiries and investigations into the performance and effectiveness of the Agency in its coordinating role relating to Member States' implementation of border controls and border management; rejects the unprecedented trend of politically motivated investigations into the Agency's activities; considers it imperative to evaluate how much time is spent by the Agency's management and staff dealing with compliance, internal control and fundamental rights related issues;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Acknowledges that an analysis of respect for fundamental rights by the Agency was not included in the scope of the Court’s special report 08/2021 ~~since that would require a specific audit in view of the complexity of the matter~~entitled ‘Frontex' support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; asks the Court to carry out ~~such~~ a specific audit about the Agency’s activities regarding the ~~future~~respect for and the protection of fundamental rights in future reports; calls the Agency to swiftly implement recommendation 5 of the Court’s special report, respecting the indicated timeline set out therein.

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Acknowledg~~Notes that an analysis of respect for fundamental rights by the Agency was not included in the scope of the Court’s special report 08/2021 since that would require a specific audit in view of the complexity of the matter; asks the Court to carry out such a specific audit in the future; calls the Agency to swiftly implement recommendation 5 of the Court’s special report, respecting the indicated timeline set out thereinentitled 'Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’ since that would require a specific audit in view of the complexity of the matter.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Acknowledges that an analysis of respect for fundamental rights by the Agency was not included in the scope of the Court’s special report 08/2021 ~~since that would require a specific audit in view of the complexity of the matter; asks the Court to carry out such a specific audit in the future~~and accepts that it is not within its framework; calls the Agency to swiftly implement recommendation 5 of the Court’s special report, respecting the indicated timeline set out therein.

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Reiterates that there is a persisting significant gender imbalance in Agency's management board; underlines that the responsibility of nominating members of the Agency's management board lies with national authorities; calls, therefore, on the Agency to remind Member States proactively of the importance of gender balance and calls on Member States to ensure gender balance when nominating their members to Agency's management board; urges that that imbalance be addressed and remedied as soon as possible;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Recalls that the Progress Lawyers Network, Front-LEX and the Greek Helsinki Monitor have submitted a legal action against the Agency before the Court of Justice of the European Union on behalf of two asylum seekers who had been victims of pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; underlines that this is the first time that the Agency is being taken to the Court of Justice of the European Union over human rights violations;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Expresses admiration, respect and full understanding for Member States' who, when faced with hybrid warfare operations in which migrants are deployed as human ammunition, do not see any added value in inviting the Agency and its fundamental rights monitors to monitor sensitive operations with national security implications;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes the Court's remark that in one case a national authority conducted two unannounced return operations, costing EUR 355 000 overall, which resulted in a sudden budgetary deficit for the Agency; notes that as a result, the Agency was forced to make an ex-post budgetary commitment, contravening its financial regulation;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Requests Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to postpone its decision on granting the executive director of the Agency discharge until the investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Office is completed;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes that the Union funding to the Agency increased by EUR 10 million by means of Amending budget No 1/2020; deplores that that amount was not visible in the budgetary accounts of the Agency, which reduces transparency; emphasises the need to keep transparency as a priority;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Remains concerned that the weaknesses identified in the Court's special report 08/2021 remain present;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Regrets that the 2019 discharge was granted to the Agency despite the recommendation of Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to the contrary; reminds that the increased competences and budget for the Agency need to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency, as well as full respect for and protection of fundamental rights; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency is conditional on such accountability, transparency and fundamental rights compliance, especially on the Agency's commitment to Union law;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Is disappointed that the Agency is still unable to fulfil the requirement of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, which provided for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by December 2020; regrets the fact that the Agency has also still not established a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; emphasises that Parliament has raised those concerns already on many occasions with the Agency, including in the context of the 2019 discharge procedure;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Welcomes that the Agency has adopted a new process to increase transparency and equal opportunities by streamlining industry dialogues; calls on the Agency to comply with the highest standards of transparency and to have transparency register up-to-date;

Amendment 44 #

6 c. Note's the Court's remark that the Agency asked the Commission on 1 September 2020 for permission to upgrade 100 AST posts into advanced-level posts (AD7 or higher); notes that the Agency, in anticipation of the Commission's reply, on 9 September 2020 sent out 47 offers to advanced-level candidates which consequently had to be withdrawn because the Agency did not have legal authority for such an action; calls on the Agency to ensure principle of legality in all its activities; calls on the Agency and the Commission to improve mutual communication in order to avoid such a situation in the future;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Recommends, on the facts available, that Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control postpones granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2020, until the Agency provides Parliament with an action plan to address the concerns expressed in this opinion, including its legal obligation to recruit 40 fundamental rights monitors able to fulfil the tasks set out in Article 110 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, and until the investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Office is completed;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Considers that concerns regarding compliance with fundamental rights obligations have not been allayed; notes, in that regard, that the Agency continues to carry out returns from Hungary, despite the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union that such returns are incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; notes, moreover, the assessment of the Agency’s own fundamental rights officer that the Agency’s role in supporting Member States implicated the Agency to some extent in their actions;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Reiterates that the significant increase in competences and budget which the Agency has seen in recent years must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and especially on the Agency's commitment to Union law; stresses in that context the need for a full clarification of the alleged violations of fundamental rights at the external borders;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Notes the gender balance reported for 2020 at senior management level with 15 men (75 %) and 5 women (25%) and at the level of the management board with 50 men (83,3 %) and 10 women (16,7 %); notes that the staff overall is composed of 870 men (70,5 %) and 364 women (29,5 %); reminds he Member States to consider gender balance when nominating members to the management board;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Regrets that the Agency made an ex-post budgetary commitment to cover for two previously unannounced return operations from a national authority’s totaling EUR 355 000 EUR, in violation of the Agency's financial regulation;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Reiterates that the increased competences and budget of the Agency need to be accompanied with a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and especially on the Agency's commitment to comply with Union law;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

~~2. Not~~Welcomes the ongoing actions of the 2. Agency on the observations of the Court; notes that the Agency has created an action plan to address identified shortcomings; calls on the Agency to continue undertaking corrective actions, including the adoption and implementation of a sensitive posts policy in line with its own internal control standards, drafting a business continuity plan and obtaining the approval of its management board, addressing the risk of double funding from the Internal Security Fund and addressing the level of carry-overs; ~~calls on the Agency to step up its efforts in~~acknowledges the actions taken by the Agency to reachingeve the required ~~occupancy levels laid down in the staff establishment plan~~clarity on its establishment plan and the pressing nature of the required recruitments; welcomes the corrective steps taken by the Agency to address the issue of reimbursements to cooperating countries without the necessary supporting documentation; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority about the progress made on those matters;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the ongoing actions of the Agency on the observations of the Court; calls on the Agency to continue undertaking corrective actions, including the adoption and implementation of a sensitive posts policy in line with its own internal control standards, drafting a business continuity plan and obtaining the approval of its management board, addressing the risk of double funding from the Internal Security Fund and addressing the high level of carry-overs; calls on the Agency to step up its efforts into reaching the required occupancy levels laid down in the staff establishment plan; welcomes the corrective steps taken by the Agency to address the issue of reimbursements to cooperating countries without the necessary supporting documentation;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Welcomes the establishment and operationalisation of the Agency's transparency register, thus addressing Parliament’s recommendation from the 2019 discharge resolution;

source: 704.540

2022/03/04 CONT 101 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Grants the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2020 /~~ Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas since December 2019 the Agency has been implementing a new mandate ~~with an essential scale-up that is significant in terms of missions and staff, that requires an adequate budget~~; whereas the ‘Court’ in its special report 08/2021 stressed that when this new mandate was adopted, no prior assessment had fed into it and that the Agency had not yet implemented the requirements of its 2016 mandate;

Amendment 100 #

Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. ~~Note~~Recalls that the European Ombudsman handled 13 cases that relate to the Agency, six on public access to documents, six on human resources management and one related to fundamental rights; notes that the Ombudsman did not provide recommendations in six cases, that the implementation of four recommendations is ongoing and that in three cases the recommendation has already been implemented;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Recalls that the crisis at the EU- Belarus border caused by the Lukashenka regime's hybrid warfare is being kept under control thanks to FRONTEX;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas despite the lack of a needs and impact assessment since December 2019 the Agency has been implementing a new mandate ~~with an essential scale-up that is significant in terms of missions and staff,~~ that requires an adequate budget;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) closed part of its investigations on 15th February 2021 that looked at the handling of reports of fundamental rights incidents including push-backs; whereas OLAF is still investigating some allegations on other issues; whereas the OLAF report regarding the investigations has not been shared with the members of the Budgetary Control Committee nor Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; whereas this hampers the scrutiny work of the Budgetary Control Committee in light of the high relevance of this report to the discharge procedure;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading -1 (new)

Conditionality

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Reiterates that several conditions have been set out in the Agency’s discharge of the 2019 financial year, and that the discharge of the 2019 financial year has made explicit that a failure to meet these conditions would, among other things, increase the risk of a refusal to grant the discharge for the financial year 2020; emphasises the need to evaluate the performance of the Agency on each of the 2019 conditions in the 2020 discharge, to nurture consistency between the discharges across the years, and as a means to assess the Agency’s performance, including on legal compliance;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1 a. Recalls the seven conditions set out in the 2019 discharge: a.Notes with concern that despite the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year to recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors at AD grade, in order to fulfil the obligation stemming from Article 110 of Regulation 2019/1896 to recruit a total of 40 fundamental rights officers at AD grade before December 5, 2020, no extra fundamental rights monitors have been recruited, that the totality of fundamental rights monitors is now still at 5 at AD grade, and 15 at AST grade, and that hence the Agency does not comply to the condition as set out in the 2019 discharge;recalls the conclusion of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group that the lower rank of the majority of fundamental rights monitors may affect their authority and autonomy, access to classified and sensitive information, and therefore their effectiveness, and that AST-grade monitors may only be deployed to operations coupled with AD-grade monitors, which implies that current monitors can only be employed at five areas of operation simultaneously;notes with concern the concluding findings of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group indicating that the Executive Director of the Agency has caused a significant and unnecessary delay in the recruitment of fundamental rights monitors; b.Recalls the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year, stemming from article 107 (3) of Regulation 2019/1896, to recruit three Deputy Executive Directors, each assigned individual area(s) of responsibility;notes with concern the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group’s finding that the Executive Director has initially delayed the recruitment of three Deputy Executive Directors, and that the Executive Director has refrained from delegating independent powers to them, but welcomes that since then three deputy directors have been recruited; c.Recalls the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year to put in place a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation 2019/1896;stresses that implementation does not merely require a procedure but also actions in line with this procedure;notes in that regard with concern that the Agency has not thoroughly evaluated its activities in Greece, even though reports by institutions of Member States, the Council of Europe and the UN, show that the Agency was carrying out joint border surveillance operations in sections where at the time, fundamental rights violations were taking place;remarks that implementing Article 46 requires the Agency to fulfil the separate condition of the 2019 discharge on the suspension of support to return-related operations from Hungary, which have been deemed incompatible by the Court of Justice of the European Union with the Return Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; d.Recalls the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year to implement an adapted Serious Incident Report (SIR) mechanism in line with the recommendations of the Working Group on Fundamental Rights and Legal Operational Aspects of Operations in the Aegean Sea (WG FRaLO);regrets in this regard that as of yet a SIR does not automatically trigger an investigation, even though a Serious Incident Report should always trigger an investigation and the Agency has been recommended to proceed swiftly on the matter;regrets that the Agency has not yet made progress on agreeing with Member States on deadlines to provide responses to the SIRs, even though the Agency was recommended to do so; e.Notes the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year to establish a fully functioning fundamental rights monitoring system in line with Article 110 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and reiterates in this regard the delay of recruitment of fundamental rights monitors;notes that despite the Agency’s claim that the fundamental rights officer is able to act independently and autonomously, the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group has concluded that the fundamental rights officer has insufficient resources, has not always been consulted prior to an operation, contrary to Article 109(e) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 in which this is required, and that attempts have been made by the Executive Director to steer the work of the fundamental rights officer in handling a SIR;notes that the fundamental rights officer indicates he is granted only a minimum amount of time to consult on a joint operation, and in some cases only post facto, even though the Agency states that he is consulted on each and every operation; f.Recalls the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year to successfully implement recommendation 5 of the Court’s Special Report 08/2021 at the end of 2021 the latest;notes that in light of the recommendation of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group that fundamental rights should be part of the expertise of relevant units, in the ongoing process of implementing the Court’s recommendation 5, no explicit attention is given to training the fundamental rights expertise of relevant units;notes that the Agency’s implementation does not address the Court’s recommendation to ensure that in internal communication, information is shared on a need-to-know- basis;notes that besides not addressing issues as recommended by FSWG and the Court, the Agency has set the due date to successfully implement recommendation 5 on 30/06/2022, which is after the deadline set by the Court and the condition of the 2019 discharge (end of 2021 the latest); g. Recalls the condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year to suspend the operations to support return- related operations from Hungary as long as the return operations issued by the Hungarian authorities are, as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, incompatible with the Return Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; notes with great concern the finding of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group that the Agency’s decision to suspend its activities did not reveal that the Agency’s operational assistance on the Return operations in Hungary continued, that this situation has not changed since the findings of the Working Group and that this means that the Agency is still active in Hungary, assisting with operations that the Court deemed incompatible with Union law in December 2020;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1 b. Concludes that the Agency has not, or only for a small part, met the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh condition in the discharge resolution of the 2019 financial year; recalls that a failure to meet these conditions would increase the risk of a refusal to grant discharge for the 2020 financial year; calls upon the Agency to explain to the discharge authority how it will fulfil the outstanding points and by when; stresses that until the conditions are sufficiently met, no discharge can be granted;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 a (new)

OLAF investigation

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1 c. Recalls the confirmation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of an investigation involving the Agency; notes the confirmation from OLAF that it has closed an investigation concerning Frontex on 15 February 2022; notes that no further details have been given about the nature of this investigation, but stresses that the fact that an OLAF- investigation is started is an indication of serious issues related to the Agency; emphasises that it is in the public interest to know about the findings of the investigation, in order to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and to be able to hold the Agency accountable for potential shortcomings; stresses the importance of the findings to become public for the Parliament to scrutinise the Agency, and notes the centrality of a proper-functioning accountability- mechanism to the discharge procedure; concludes that until the moment the OLAF-findings are shared with the Members, the Parliament will not be able to know whether the findings concern 2020 and thus discharge for this financial year should be postponed until the findings are made public; reiterates its call to the Agency to fully cooperate on this matter;

Amendment 19 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 b (new)

The Court’s Special Report 08/2021 entitled: ‘Frontex’s support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’

Amendment 2 #

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)

-1 d. Notes with concern the findings of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) in its Special Report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex’s support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; points out that the audit covered the period from the end of 2016, when the Agency’s new mandate under Regulation (EU) 2016/16242 came into force, to the end of 2020, and therefore entirely covered the year 2020; reiterates the request to the Court, made in the 2019 discharge, to carry out a specific audit in the future that analyses the respect for fundamental rights by the Agency, since such an assessment was not included within the scope of the Court’s special report; recalls that in the 2019 discharge the Court was asked to carry out a specific audit regarding fundamental rights; calls on the Court to inform the discharge authority on the steps taken;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)

-1 e. Notes with concern that the Court found, in its Special Report 08/2021, several shortcomings related to the Agency’s primary activities, namely the situation monitoring, risk analysis, vulnerability assessment, joint operations and rapid border interventions, return operations and the Agency’s training and the lack of needs and impact assessments prior to the exponential increase in the Agency’s expenses; expresses with concern that the Agency has not yet taken sufficient measures to adapt its organisation to fully implement its mandate under Regulation (EU) 2016/1624, and that the Court highlighted significant risks related to the Agency’s mandate under Regulation (EU) 2019/1896;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 f (new)

-1 f. Regrets the lack of needs and impact assessments prior to the proposal for Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 that exponentially increased the Agency’s resources; urges the Commission and the Court to regularly assess the Agency’s and Member States’ performance to identify the actual work the Agency is doing to comply with the legal bases to which it should abide;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 g (new)

-1 g. Notes with concern the Court’s conclusion that the Agency’s operational reporting fails to inform decision-makers adequately as it lacks information on actual costs and performance;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 h (new)

-1 h. Notes with concern the Court’s conclusion that although a functional information exchange framework is in place to provide relevant migration information about the situation at the external borders, and to support the management of irregular immigration, it did not function well enough to provide accurate, complete and up-to-date situational awareness at the Union’s external borders; regrets that adequate information exchange framework has not yet been established for cross-border crime, affecting the capacity of the Agency and Member States to respond quickly to any threats detected; is concerned by serious drawbacks undermining complete situational awareness at the Union external borders, such as the lack of information, of technical standards for border control equipment, of a common catalogue for cross-border crime reporting, and of near- real-time information about the situation at the Union’s air borders, and by delays in updating the common integrated risk analysis model; notes that this is a shared responsibility of the Agency, the Member States and the Commission, and that it is a shared responsibility of these stakeholders to ensure that the matters are resolved; reiterates the discharge authority’s call expressed in Resolution (EU) 2021/1615 regarding the need to improve the monitoring and reporting regarding situations and incidents on the Union’s borders, in particular with regards to respecting fundamental rights;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 i (new)

-1 i. Notes the Court’s conclusion that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 introduced significant additional reporting requirements for Member States, which requires an automated transmission of data from Member States to the EUROSUR’s database; notes the statement of the Member States that the Agency’s direct involvement in this automation is not yet apparent;

Amendment 26 #

-1 j. Notes with concern the Court’s finding that the Agency did not provide adequate information about the impact or costs of its activities, did not carry out a robust evaluation of joint operations, did not explain any deviation or identify the impact of any gaps in resources, and did not provide information about the real costs of its joint operations; stresses that the Agency has an obligation to provide adequate information about the impacts and costs of its activities and calls upon the Agency to inform the discharge authority about its progress in addressing this matter;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 k (new)

-1 k. Reiterates that the Agency falls short in implementing the condition of the 2019 discharge to successfully implement recommendation 5 from the Court’s report; is concerned that the Agency has missed deadlines for the implementation of legal obligations, action plans and (other) recommendations in the past; requests the Court to conduct a factual investigation once the deadlines of recommendations 1 to 4 have passed (at the end of 2022), in order to assess whether, and if so to what extent, and how the Agency has implemented the Court’s recommendations adequately and in time; emphasises that the Court’s findings on the Agency’s progress should be an integral part of the discharge of future financial years, as at these moments the actual progress of the Agency on the recommendations can be assessed, and the adequate implementation of the recommendations is a cornerstone of the accountability-mechanism between the Agency and the discharge authority;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 c (new)

Respect of fundamental rights

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 l (new)

-1 l. Recalls that the Agency has not, or has not fully, fulfilled all of the conditions of the discharge of the 2019 financial year that relate to the respect of fundamental rights;

Amendment 3 #

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 m (new)

-1 m. Recalls the establishment of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) by Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; notes that the FSWG published its report on the fact-finding investigation on the Agency concerning alleged fundamental rights violations on 14 July 2021, the aim of which was to gather “all relevant information and evidence regarding alleged violations of fundamental rights in which the Agency was involved, was aware of and/or did not act, internal management, procedures for reporting, and the handling of complaints”; recalls that the FSWG concluded that the Agency had “evidence in support of allegations of fundamental rights violations in Member States with which it had a joint operation, but failed to address and follow-up on these violations promptly, vigilantly and effectively ”and that “as a result, Frontex did not prevent these violations, nor reduced the risk of future fundamental rights violations”;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 n (new)

-1 n. Recalls that FSWG identified gaps in the framework of cooperation with Member States, which may hinder the fulfilment of the Agency’s fundamental rights obligations, and highlighted the respective responsibilities of Member States and the Commission to ensure effective cooperation with the Agency, especially as it relates to the respect of fundamental rights, for instance by providing evidence on the substance of cases being investigated; acknowledges the limits experienced by the Agency in practice to only investigate fundamental rights compliance in relation to assets financed or co-financed by the Agency;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 o (new)

-1 o. Recalls Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, that stresses that the Agency shall guarantee the protection of fundamental rights, and Article 106 (m) of that Regulation, that obliges the Agency to assess prior to any operational activity whether fundamental rights violations are likely to persist; shares in this light its concern about the FSWG conclusion that recommendations and advice provided by the former fundamental rights officer over a four- year period was ignored by the Executive Director, notably regarding the Agency’s operations in Hungary; notes with concern the finding of the FSWG that “implementing rules on the supervisory mechanism to monitor the application of the provisions on the issue of force fail to guarantee that sufficient fundamental rights expertise is involved in decision making”;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 p (new)

-1 p. Recalls the conclusions of the European Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry regarding the Agency’s complaints mechanism for alleged breaches of fundamental rights OI/5/2020/MHZ; notes that, although the European Ombudsman did not decide to take the matter further, she did identify shortcomings in the complaints mechanism, which could make it more difficult for individuals to report alleged fundamental rights violations and seek redress;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 q (new)

-1 q. Recalls Article 111 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, that obliges the Agency to ensure that the Agency cooperates with the fundamental rights officer to take the necessary steps to further develop an independent and effective complaints mechanism to monitor and ensure respect for the fundamental rights in all the activities of the Agency; notes in this regard with concern the finding of the FSWG that “the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) and the Consultative Forum (CF)were frequently not involved from the start in the development of rules, procedures and strategies on matters concerning fundamental rights”; notes in this regard also with concern the finding of the FSWG that the whistleblower guidelines currently do not offer similar levels of protection for seconded national experts and other non-staff members; remarks that the failure of the successful implementation of the SIR is a failure to comply with Article 111 as well; calls on the Executive Director to revise his relationship with the fundamental rights officer and consultative forum, following up on their recommendations in a timely manner, and report to the discharge authority about the progress made;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 r (new)

-1 r. Notes that the FRO formally registered ten serious incident reports (SIRs) with three final FRO reports issued closing the SIRs and three more considered closed pending the publication of the FRO reports; notes that the concerned SIRs involve alleged violations of fundamental rights in the course of operational activities, including return operations, coordinated by the Agency (i.e. relating to Member States’ and Agency staff);

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 d (new)

Transparency, good governance and integrity

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 s (new)

-1 s. Emphasises the need for the Agency to cooperate with all its internal and external stakeholders in good faith, as embedded in Article 11 of Regulation 2019/1896;notes in that regard: a. the finding of the FSWG that the Executive Director failed “to respond or follow up to the many expressions of concerns, recommendations, opinions or observations submitted by the FRO over the course of four years” and recommendation to apply professional courtesy in this regard; b. the finding of the FSWG that the Executive Director failed to cooperate to ensure compliance with some of the provisions in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; c. the finding of the FSWG that the Executive Director delayed recruitment of three Deputy Directors needed to promote the checks and balances within the Agency’s top management, whereas simultaneously the Executive Director did expand the Executive Management’s cabinet to a total staff size of 63, and the strong concerns FSWG has about whether the Deputy Directors are delegated independent powers; d. the finding of the FSWG that the Executive Director continues to maintain that he is not aware of any information that fundamental rights allegedly have been or are being violated, even though there is a large number of reports on alleged fundamental rights violations at borders where the Agency is operational; e. the finding of the FSWG that the Executive Director recategorized a SIR situation related to a suspected violation of fundamental rights and requested the fundamental rights officer to remove all information gathered, whereas the fundamental rights officer did not request this and should be able to take on such matters independently; f. the fact that the Executive Director misled the European Parliament, as in a hearing before the Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on July 6, 2020, he stated that the March 2 incident (referring to a suspected fundamental rights violation) was “the only case”, even though he knew of at least one other incident as he signed a letter about this to the Greek Minister, he misrepresented facts referring to another case involving Danish vessels in the same hearing, and the FSWG’s finding that he knowingly provided false information to the FSWG about information received by the Agency from UNCHR related to fundamental rights concerns about the Agency’s operations in Greece, and notes that the aforementioned matters have been taken place in this discharge’s year; urges the Executive Director to approach all relevant stakeholders with transparency, integrity and honesty, and calls on him to recognise the findings of the reports on alleged fundamental rights violations at borders where the Agency is operational;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 t (new)

-1 t. Recalls with concern that the Agency falsely claimed in response to the concerns raised in the discharge for the 2016 year about the transparency of meetings with lobbyists, that “Frontex only met with registered lobbyists who are registered in the EU Transparency Register”, while that year it held meetings with 24 private bodies of which over half were not registered in the EU Transparency register, and 105 of the 149 groups that met with the Agency between 2017 and 2019 were not registered in the EU Transparency Register; calls on the Agency to open up for the 2020 year about which private parties it met during its biannual industry days, and at other moments; urges the Agency to demand from private organisations with which it meets that they are registered in the EU Transparency Register, and to update the discharge authority on the progress made in this regard;

Amendment 39 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 u (new)

-1 u. Notes with concern the fact that on March 4, 2020, the Agency’s Executive Director took a private flight from the Agency’s office to Brussels, worth EUR 8 500 of taxpayers’ money, even though it was notified a day in advance that the Brussels meeting would be scheduled, at the same day there was a commercial flight available at a fraction of this cost, and the airline offering this commercial flight confirmed to the Agency that it still had seats available at this flight, in contrast to the claims made by the Agency; remarks with concern that the Agency has had instances of excessive spending before, such as a EUR 94 000 costing dinner on the Agency’s annual one-day event in 2015 in Warsaw, a EUR 580 152,22 costing internal event in a Polish resort in 2018, and EUR 494 542,46 for the same event in 2019; stresses that this is in contrast with a responsible handling of taxpayers’ money and urges the Executive Director to change his approach in this regard;

Amendment 4 #

Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020 /~~ Postpones the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes ~~with concern~~ that the budget- monitoring efforts during the financial year 2020 resulted in a budget implementation rate of 78,42 %, representing a decrease of 21,42 % compared to 2019; highlights that EUR 360 mln of EUR 364 mln of the budget were committed; takes note that EUR 95 mln have been returned to the Union general budget; notes with concern that the payment appropriations execution rate was very low at 43,84 %, representing a decrease of 25,30 % compared to 2019;

Amendment 41 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Note~~Recalls the Court’s ~~remark that,~~findings that the Agency did not provide adequate information about the impact or costs of its activities, did not carry out a robust evaluation of joint operations, did not explain any deviation or identify the impact of any gaps in resources, and did not provide information about the real costs of its joint operations; acknowledges that for the financial planning of its return operations, the Agency relies on estimates provided by the cooperating countries and that complete and timely availability of this information is crucial; notes the Court’s observation that in 2020 in one case a national authority included two previously unannounced return operations, totalling EUR 355 000, in a grant agreement at the financial closure of the action, resulting in a sudden budgetary deficit for the Agency, that forced the Agency to make an ex-post budgetary commitment, contravening the Agency’s Financial Regulation; acknowledges the dependence of the Agency on cooperating countries and calls on the Agency to be more strict in setting and enforcing standards related to completeness and timeliness for the receipt of information related to financial planning of operations, including the return operations;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the Court’s remark that, for the financial planning of its return operations, the Agency relies on estimates provided by the cooperating countries and that complete and timely availability of this information is crucial; notes the Court’s observation that in 2020 in one case a national authority included two previously unannounced return operations, totalling EUR 355 000, in a grant agreement at the financial closure of the action, resulting in a sudden budgetary deficit for the Agency, that forced the Agency to make an ex-post budgetary commitment, contravening the Agency’s Financial Regulation; acknowledges the dependence of the Agency on cooperating countries and calls on the Agency to be more strict in setting and enforcing standards related to completeness and timeliness for the receipt of information related to financial planning of operations, including the return operations; recalls that rules and principles of the Agency's Financial Regulation must be observed and respected in all situations;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the Court’s remark that, for the financial planning of its return operations, the Agency relies on estimates provided by the cooperating countries and that complete and timely availability of this information is crucial; notes the Court’s observation that in 2020 in one case a national authority included two previously unannounced return operations, totalling EUR 355 000, in a grant agreement at the financial closure of the action, resulting in a sudden budgetary deficit for the Agency, that forced the Agency to make an ex-post budgetary commitment, contravening the Agency’s Financial Regulation; acknowledges the dependence of the Agency on cooperating countries and calls on the Agency to be more strict in setting and enforcing standards related to completeness and timeliness for the receipt of information related to financial planning of operations, including the return oper; stresses that such returns should not have been supported by the Agency, as it was contravening the Agency’s Financial Regulation; condemns that the agency decided instead to make an ex-post budgetary amendment in violation of its Financial Regulation; calls on the Agency to comply in the future and refuse support to Member States if this would result in a breach of its Regulations;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Highlights the fact that the Agency started an upgrade of the FAR (Frontex Applications for Return) and IRMA (Integrated Return Management Application) systems to take steps towards an interoperable system of costs connected to activities, to ensure sound financial management of grants; highlights that the Member States will be obliged to insert operational and financial details of the activities carried out; calls on the Commission to strengthen the relationship between the Agency and the Member States and to ensure binding rules for the Member Stated for financial and operational protection and monitoring;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the Court’s observation that the pandemic has affected the Agency’s operations and budget implementation in 2020, with the Agency reducing its initial budget by EUR 95 000 000, through two amending budgets; notes that a provisional budgetary commitment of EUR 18 100 000 for the preparation of field deployments in 2021 was carried forward without the Agency having entered into legal commitments within the time limit laid down in Article 75 of the Agency’s Financial Regulation; notes that the Agency acknowledges the observation whilst working on remedial measures to prevent future occurrence, which entails the verification of carry forward tables for the associated legal commitments; acknowledges that the Agency issued an Administrative Notice with guidance on the annuality principle which explained the carry-over rules in detail;

Amendment 46 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the ~~discharge authorit~~Court’s conclusion that the Agency’s obspervation~~s on the application of the unit-~~al reporting fails to inform decision-makers adequately as it lacks information on actual costs a~~pproach for the deployment~~nd performance; reiterates its request to the Court to assess the progress of the~~avy technical equipment and~~ Agency on recommendations 1 to 4; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the results of the suggested contacts with the Court and the Commission to solve the issue of lacking supporting evidence;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the discharge authority’s observations on the application of the unit- cost approach for the deployment of heavy technical equipment and calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the results of the suggested contacts with the Court and the Commission toand to urgently solve the issue of lacking supporting evidence;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes recent media reports that the Agency spent €8,500 to send its executive director Fabrice Leggeri on a private jet to attend a meeting in Brussels, although flight information showed commercial alternatives at a fraction of the cost would have been available;[1] [1] https://euobserver.com/migration/154274

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the Agency implemented two rapid border interventions at the external land and maritime borders of Greece with Turkey that required deployment of technical equipment from the rapid reaction equipment and technical equipment pools, as well as human resources; expresses concerns that in both operational areas, there have been consistent and numerous reports of push- backs; stresses the high risk in this regard of the Agency being complicit of fundamental rights violations, notably through its key role of detection of irregular crossings;

Amendment 5 #

Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Recalls that the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) concluded that “several reliable actors, such as national- and international human rights bodies and organisations, consistently reported about fundamental rights violations at the border in a number of Member States, but that Frontex generally disregarded these reports”; stresses that the FSWG concluded "that the Agency found evidence in support of allegations of fundamental rights violations in Member States with which it had a joint operation, but failed to address and follow-up on these violations promptly, vigilantly and effectively"; notes that the "Agency also failed to adequately respond to internal observations about certain cases of probable fundamental rights violations in Member States" and that hat the FSWG “found deficiencies in Frontex’s mechanisms to monitor, report and assess fundamental rights situations and developments, and makes concrete recommendations for improvement";

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Stresses that the FSWG expressed concern "about the lack of cooperation of the Executive Director to ensure compliance with some of the provisions of the EBCG Regulation, notably on fundamental rights";

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the Agency’s surveillance aircraft services performed a total of 1 068 missions in 2020 out of which 1030 were surveillance flights and 38 related to fishery control; highlights that the information gathered during these surveillance flights has enabled different stakeholders to conduct push- backs in violation of Union and international law; stresses in this regard the incident of 18-19 April 2020; notes that during that night, as described in the final report of the Frontex Management Board Working group, “A Frontex Surveillance Aircraft observed a rubber boat in Greek Territorial waters. The rubber boat was empty and being towed by a Hellenic Coast Guard vessel towards Turkish Territorial waters. Approximately 20-30 people were on board the Hellenic Coast Guard vessel that was towing the rubber boat. After some time, these people were retransferred onto the rubber boat at the Greek-Turkish border. Afterwards, the Hellenic Coast Guard left the location;”

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the Agency’s surveillance aircraft services performed a total of 1 068 missions in 2020 out of which 1030 were surveillance flights and 38 related to fishery control; welcomes the fact that the number of surveillance aircraft services increased over the past years with a number of 177 missions in 2017 and a number of 1068 missions in 2020;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that the Agency’s assets in maritime operations have helped to rescue more than 3 408 migrants during patrolling activities, which also resulted in the detection of 790 facilitators, four traffickers of human beings and a wide variety of other types of cross-border crimes, such as smuggling of illegal goods and substances (1 463 litres of alcohol, 4 013 pieces of ammunition, approximately 361 kilogrammes of cocaine, more than 144 tonnes of hashish and marijuana, and 40 kilogrammes of heroin); notes however the unfair prosecution of asylum seekers on the grounds of “facilitating illegal entry”, that has led many of them to be arrested without legal assistance, excessive pre-trial detention, lack of translations and representation by unprepared lawyers; stresses for example the case of an asylum seeker, sentenced in Greece for 142 years for facilitating illegal entry, despite being forced to drive at gunpoint by the Turkish trafficker;

Amendment 55 #

9 a. Highlights that the Agency’s aerial surveillance in the Central Mediterranean and its direct transmission of information to the so-called Libyan coast guards in order for the persons to be intercepted at sea, as reported by media, is making the Agency complicit of what has been described by the UN as “crimes against humanity” in Libya that are conducted against migrants in detention centers after they have been pulled back to Libya;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the Agency’s return operations, despite being impacted by the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, continued with 21 Member States taking part as either organisers or participants in return operations by charter flights coordinated and co-financed by the Agency, with overall 7952 persons handed over, reaching 28 third countries of return, significant lower numbers than in 2019; notes that voluntary returns made up for 18 % of all supported flights; notes that 26 Member States carried out returns by scheduled flights with the Agency’s support, returning 3981 third country nationals to 83 countries of return, with among the returnees 2173 (55 %) unescorted and 1532 (38%) returning in a voluntary manner; recalls the call of the FSWG to suspend the Agency's support for return-related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notes the continued support of the Agency despite this call and concerns expressed by the Commission;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes further that one action brought in May 2021 was brought on behalf of two asylum-seekers - an unaccompanied minor and a woman - who 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; is shocked that the applicants were also victims of other pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; notes that another action was brought in October 2021 on behalf of a Syrian family that was returned from Greece to Turkey on a flight operated by the Agency and the Greek authorities;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Notes that in 2020 COVID-19 related measures included the closure of borders and suspension of air traffic, which affected all operational activities coordinated by the Agency; notes that the number of return operations drastically dropped in 2020; calls on the Commission to introduce, in close cooperation with the Agency, an emergency plan that sets out certain safety measures, ensuring the safe continuation of return operations;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Expresses serious concerns regarding the fact that an interpreter employed by the Agency was assaulted by Greek border guards in Greece alongside at least one hundred third-country nationals and was then forced, together with other persons, across the border into Turkey; highlights that this episode is another credible evidence of the systematic violations of fundamental rights that occur in Greece and should lead the Agency to suspend its operations in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; expresses serious concerns at the numerous serious incident reports reporting violations of fundamental rights in Greece and Lithuania and the absence of appropriate actions taken by the executive director to address those violations, including by following all the recommendations of the Fundamental Rights Officer and suspending operations in line with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896;

Amendment 6 #

Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Is concerned by the weaknesses identified in the special report of the Court 08/2021 related to gaps and inconsistencies in the information exchange framework, which hinders the capacity of the Agency and the Member States to monitor external borders and to respond when necessary; notes further that risk analysis and vulnerability assessment activities are not always supported by complete and good-quality data, and that the joint operations in the framework of cross-border crime are not yet sufficiently developed in the Agency’s day-to-day activities; is worried that the Court has identified an absence of reporting on the Agency’s efficiency and costs;

Amendment 61 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Notes that the Executive Director of the Agency reports regularly on the progress of the implementation in each Management Board Meeting covering the recommendations addressed by the WG on Fundamental Rights and Legal Operations Aspects of Operations, Frontex Scrutiny Working Group of the European Parliament, the European Ombudsman and the Court;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Recalls that all of the Agency's operations and activities must be conducted in full compliance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, as well as the EU Staff and Financial Regulations;

Amendment 63 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2 a (new)

Fundamental rights and follow up to the 2019 discharge cycle

Amendment 64 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11 b. Notes with regret that in October 2020, journalistic investigations presented several allegations against the Agency, regarding its possible complicity in illegal migrant pushbacks in the Mediterranean Sea; notes that these allegations were supported by video footage of Frontex assets allegedly participating in such actions;

Amendment 65 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11 c. Recalls that these revelations have prompted the creation of a Parliament Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) in order to investigate the exposed allegations; highlights that the FSWG "did not find conclusive evidence on the direct performance of pushbacks and/or collective expulsions by Frontex in the serious incident cases that could be examined by the FSWG", but concluded "that the Agency found evidence in support of allegations of fundamental rights violations in Member States with which it had a joint operation, but failed to address and follow-up on these violations promptly, vigilantly and effectively"; further notes that the FSWG “found deficiencies in Frontex’s mechanisms to monitor, report and assess fundamental rights situations and developments, and makes concrete recommendations for improvement", but "also identified gaps in the framework of cooperation with Member States, which may hamper the fulfilment of Frontex’s fundamental rights obligations"; notes that the FSWG expressed concern "about the lack of cooperation of the Executive Director to ensure compliance with some of the provisions of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, notably on fundamental rights"; notes that the "FSWG takes the position that the Management Board should have played a much more proactive role in acknowledging the serious risk of fundamental rights violations and in taking action to ensure that Frontex fulfils its negative and positive fundamental rights obligations as enshrined in the Regulation";

Amendment 66 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)

11 d. Reminds that following these findings, Parliament, through its Resolution P9_TA(2021)0442 on the 2019 Discharge for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, decided to place a part of the Agency's 2022 budget in a reserve, to be released upon completion of six conditions; regrets that following negotiations for the 2022 budget this reserve was not implemented; reiterates however its previous position that failure to fulfill these conditions increased the risk for refusal of discharge for the 2020 financial year;

Amendment 67 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 e (new)

11 e. Notes that, with respect to the six conditions established by the European Parliament in its previous resolution, the Agency has made so far the following progress: a) the 20 Fundamental Rights Monitors (FRM) posts available at AD level remain vacant and are to be filled in 2022;notes that this process is under the control of the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO), conducted independently from the office of the Executive Director;welcomes the cooperation between Frontex and the EU Fundamental Rights Agency in this recruitment; b) all three deputy executive directors have been recruited and have joined the Agency; c) the Executive Director signed the Standard Operating Procedure on the mechanism to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or terminate, or not launch Frontex activities, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896;notes however that the Agency continues to operate in Hungary;acknowledges that additional safeguards have been put in place and all requests from Hungary for support are assessed on a case-by-case basis; d) the Executive Director signed, in April 2021, the Standard Operating Procedure on the Serious Incident Report mechanism;notes that a report on the practical implementation of this procedure has been presented by the Executive Director and the FRO, concluding that there is a need to further revise the procedure; e) the Agency has adopted special rules to guarantee the independence of the FRO, it has recruited and adopted a new FRO as well as a deputy FRO;notes that the Agency has drawn up a Fundamental Rights Strategy and Action Plan, it has adopted a specialised fundamental rights training curriculum for FRMs and has also revised its complaints mechanism;underlines however that the recruitment of the 40 FRMs, due for December 2020, is still ongoing; f) the Agency has completed the implementation of a competency management project and has adopted a value-adding knowledge management and need-to-know policy, while the implementation of the Situational Awareness and Monitoring Division’s Transformation Programme and a Human Resources capacity assessment are still in progress;

Amendment 68 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2 b (new)

OLAF investigation

Amendment 69 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 f (new)

11 f. Recalls the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation on the Agency over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks; highlights that the investigation was finalised on 15 February 2022 and its outcome was partially presented to the Members of the Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 28 February 2022, but has not yet been provided to the Members; further highlights that Members were only informed of the outcome through an oral presentation, without providing any supporting written materials; underlines that the findings exposed in this partial presentation raise serious concerns and do not provide sufficient information to support a decision on granting discharge to the Agency for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas all Union bodies, offices and agencies ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the citizens of the Union for the funds entrusted to them;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Regrets that, on 31 December 2020, the establishment plan was 63,01 % implemented, with 662 temporary agents appointed out of 1 050 temporary agents authorised under the Union budget (compared to 484 authorised posts in 2019); notes that, in addition, 387 contract agents and 185 seconded national experts worked for the Agency (with 730 contract agents and 220 seconded national experts authorised for the Agency in 2020); reiterates that seconded national experts and contract agents should get the same level of protection under the whistleblower guidelines and that the FSWG concluded this is currently not the case;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls the discharge authority’s concern about the recruitment of the Agency’s fundamental rights monitors in the appropriate grades; calls on the Agency to swiftly complete the ongoing recruitment procedures and work on embedding the work of the FRO into the operational procedures of the Agency;deleted

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Recalls the discharge authority’s concern about the recruitment of the Agency’s fundamental rights monitors in the appropriate grades; calls~~Is disappointed that the Agency is still unable to fulfil the requirement of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, which provided for the recruitment of at least 40 Fundamental Rights Monitors by December 2020; recalls the discharge authority’s concern about the recruitment of the Agency’s fundamental rights monitors in the appropriate grades; regrets the fact that the Agency has also still not established a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; reiterates its call on the Agency to swiftly complete the ongoing recruitment procedures and to work on embedding the work of the FRO into the operational procedures of the Agency; asks the Agency to report to the discharge authority on this matter;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls the discharge authority’s concern about the absence of recruitment of the Agency’s fundamental rights monitors ~~in the appropriate grades; calls on the Agency to swiftly complete the ongoing recruitment procedures and work on embedding the work of the FRO into the operational procedures of the Agency~~by the deadline of 5 December 2020 set by Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and the lack of progress on the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors afterwards in the appropriate grades; calls on the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; underlines the personal responsibility of the Executive Director in delaying this process in violation of the Agency’s Regulation;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recalls that the correction coefficient for staff in Warsaw, Poland was 70,09 for 2020; acknowledges that lower salaries can have a negative impact on European applicants, and may contribute to Frontex’s general difficulties in recruiting;deleted

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Notes~~Is concerned of the gender unbalance reported for 2020 at senior management level with 15 men (75 %) and 5 women (25 %), at the level of the management board with 50 men (83,3 %) and 10 women (16,7 %), and for the Agency’s staff overall, with 870 men (70,5 %) and 364 women (29,5 %); asks the Agency to ensure gender balance at the management and staff levels in the future; asks the Commission and the Member States to take into account the importance of ensuring gender balance when nominating their members to the Agency’s management board;

Amendment 76 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes with concern the gender balance reported for 2020 at senior management level with 15 men (75 %) and 5 women (25 %), at the level of the management board with 50 men (83,3 %) and 10 women (16,7 %), and for the Agency’s staff overall, with 870 men (70,5 %) and 364 women (29,5 %); calls upon the Agency to improve the gender balance in its top management and staff, and report to the discharge authority about the progress made;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the European Anti- Fraud Office opened an investigation in 2019 involving the Agency; reiterates its call on the Agency to fully cooperate with OLAF and to keep the discharge authority informed on any developments that are relevant for the discharge procedure;deleted

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the European Anti- Fraud Office opened an investigation in 2019 over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks involving the Agency; reiterates its call on the Agency to fully cooperate with OLAF and to keep the discharge authority informed on any developments that are relevant for the discharge procedure; notes that OLAF closed part of its investigations into the handling of fundamental rights incidents including push-backs on February 15, 2022 and that two other investigations are still ongoing; calls on OLAF and FRONTEX Management Board to make the full report available to Members of the European Parliament from the Budgetary Control Committee and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in light of the high relevance for their scrutiny role; stresses that the discharge of the Agency can not be granted without access to these crucial findings;

Amendment 8 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Monika HOHLMEIER, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)

-A a. whereas Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 stipulates the requirements with which the European Border and Coast Guard Agency should comply, including in areas such as the respect for fundamental rights;

Amendment 80 #

Sabrina PIGNEDOLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the European Anti- Fraud Office opened an investigation in 2019 involving the Agency and pinpointed irregularities; reiterates its call on the Agency to fully cooperate with OLAF and to keep the discharge authority informed on any developments that are relevant for the discharge procedure;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Takes note that on 15 February 2022 OLAF concluded its investigation on allegations in relation to the exercice of professional duties and non-compliance with the rules in place; calls on OLAF and the Commission to make sure that the full investigation report will be shared with the discharge authority as soon as possible, while respecting its Regulation and all legal requirements on the protection of sensitive data and of the persons concerned; reminds that it is necessary to have clarity on all elements of the investigation, in order for the discharge authority to take an informed and correct decision in relation to the 2020 budgetary procedure;

Amendment 82 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA, Markus PIEPER, Jeroen LENAERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Notes media reports that the OLAF report has been finalised and sent to the Frontex Management Board; recalls information from media reports that the recommendations in the OLAF report are of disciplinary nature; calls on the Management Board to make its decision within an adequate timeframe and inform the discharge authority about its decision including the reasoning;

Amendment 83 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Monika HOHLMEIER, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Is concerned that OLAF concluded an investigation on 15 February 2022 with a disciplinary recommendation; calls on the Frontex Management Board to undertake all the necessary appropriate follow-up actions regarding OLAF’s recommendation;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Reminds the importance of the Agency and of its role as a border and coast guard of the Union; calls therefore on the Agency to step up its efforts to follow up and appropriately address all OLAF recommendations with a view to ensure full functionality, as well as effectiveness and credibility of its actions, especially in the context of the current situation in Ukraine, when the border control of the Union and proper management of the increasing migration flows become of paramount importance;

Amendment 85 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes with concern from the Agency’s replies to the Parliament’s written questions that in total 17 cases of harassment were reported to the Agency’s competent entities in 2020; calls on the Agency to carefully assess each case, taking a zero-tolerance approach to psychological or, sexual ~~harassment~~or any other kind of harassment, and to proceed swiftly with holding those responsible for this misconduct accountable; welcomes the training received by the confidential counsellors and the actions undertaken to raise awareness among staff and inform staff on the confidential counsellors; welcomes the online awareness-raising sessions for executive, senior, and middle managers and team leaders, and that dedicated awareness sessions were organised to staff members that signed up for such sessions;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes from the Agency’s replies to the Parliament’s written questions that in total 17 cases of harassment were reported to the Agency’s competent entities in 2020; calls on the Agency to carefully assess each case, taking a zero-tolerance approach to psychological or sexual harassment; welcomes the training received by the confidential counsellors and the actions undertaken to raise awareness among staff and inform staff on the confidential counsellors; welcomes the online awareness-raising sessions for executive, senior, and middle managers and team leaders, and that dedicated awareness sessions were organised to staff members that signed up for such sessions; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority about the outcome of these cases;

Amendment 87 #

Sabrina PIGNEDOLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Notes from~~Expresses alarm at the Agency’s replies to the Parliament’s written questions to the effect that in total 17 cases of harassment were reported to the Agency’s competent entities in 2020; calls on the Agency to carefully assess each case, taking a zero-tolerance approach to psychological or sexual harassment; welcomes the training received by the confidential counsellors and the actions undertaken to raise awareness among staff and inform staff on the confidential counsellors; welcomes the online awareness-raising sessions for executive, senior, and middle managers and team leaders, and that dedicated awareness sessions were organised to staff members that signed up for such sessions;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5

~~Prevention and management of conflicts of interest, and transparency;~~deleted

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Regrets that not all management board member CVs and declarations of interest are published on the Agency’s website~~, most notably the declarations of interest of the chair person and deputy chairperson of the management board~~; calls on the Agency, with the aim of increasing transparency, to publish the missing CVs and declarations of interest on its website and to report to the discharge authority on the measures taken in that regard;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas, according to its statement of revenue and expenditure1 , the final budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2020 was EUR 364 432 655, representing an increase of 10,40 % compared to 2019; whereas the Agency’s budget derives mainly from the Union budget; whereas the Agency has seen its budget expanded in the last years from EUR 118 million in 2011 to an annual average of EUR 900 million for the 2021- 2027 period despite serious concerns over the lack of implementation of its regulation, its management, and fundamental rights violations; _________________ 1 OJ C 143, 30.4.2020, p. 6.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Recalls the discharge authority’s remarks in the 2019 discharge regarding transparency and interest representation for the Agency; notes that the Agency implemented a new process to increase transparency and equal opportunities by streamlining industry dialogues; notes that all industry meetings (i-days) were organised online with presentation of more than 60 solutions by 50 companies, with the participation of 430 representatives of the Agency, Member States and Union partners, as well as international organisations; notes that the Agency, in addition to the i-days, organised an online demonstration of technological solutions relevant for the implementation of entry-exit-system back- to-back with the International Conference on Biometrics for Borders, showcasing over 100 solutions, with 23 industry presentations to over 470 conference attendees; calls on the Agency to comply with the highest standards as regards transparency and to keep its online transparency register up-to-date;deleted

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Recalls the discharge authority’s ~~remark~~concerns in the 2019 discharge regarding transparency and interest representation for the Agency; notes that the Agency implemented a new process to increase transparency ~~and equal opportunities by streamlining industry dialogues~~; notes that all industry meetings (i-days) were organised online with presentation of more than 60 solutions by 50 companies, with the participation of 430 representatives of the Agency, Member States and Union partners, as well as international organisations; notes that the Agency, in addition to the i-days, organised an online demonstration of technological solutions ~~relevant for the implementation of entry- exit-system~~ back-to-back with the International Conference on Biometrics for Borders, showcasing over 100 solutions, with 23 industry presentations to over 470 conference attendees; notes that very few meetings appear however to be registered in the newly established transparency register; calls on the Agency to comply with the highest standards as regards transparency and to keep its online transparency register up-to-date;

Amendment 92 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Stresses that the European ombudsman urged the Agency to "ensure a more proactive approach to transparency"; recalls the call of the FSWG on the Agency “to further increase its transparency by acting in accordance with the practice of the AsktheEU portal and not resort to any copyright clause” and “that SIRs, reports on the use of force and individual complaints should only be classified as restricted documents when necessary and on a case-by-case basis;”

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Notes the establishment and operationalisation of the Agency's transparency register; calls on the Agency to comply with the highest standards of transparency and to have the transparency register regularly updated;

Amendment 94 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Notes the Court’s finding that on 1 September 2020 the Agency asked the Commission for permission to upgrade 100 AST posts into advanced-level posts (grade AD 7 or higher), for the standing corps and new tasks under the new mandate; notes that the Agency, in anticipation of the Commission’s reply, on 9 September 2020, sent out 47 offers to advanced-level candidates with the Commission informing the Agency that it had no legal authority to upgrade the posts, resulting in the Agency immediately withdrawing the 47 job offers; ~~acknowledges the actions undertaken by the Agency to achieve the required clarity on its establishment plan from the Commission and the pressing nature of the required recruitments~~recalls that this has exposed the Agency at an unnecessary risk of reputational damage and litigation; calls on the Agency and the Commission to improve their communication, closer aligning the Agency’s actions with the Commission’s decision-making processes to avoid such situations from re-occurring;

Amendment 95 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Notes the Court’s finding that on 1 September 2020 the Agency asked the Commission for permission to upgrade 100 AST posts into advanced-level posts (grade AD 7 or higher), for the standing corps and new tasks under the new mandate; notes with concern that the Agency, in anticipation of the Commission’s reply, on 9 September 2020, sent out 47 offers to advanced-level candidates with the Commission informing the Agency that it had no legal authority to upgrade the posts, resulting in the Agency immediately withdrawing the 47 job offers; ~~acknowledges the actions undertaken by the Agency to achieve the required clarity on its establishment plan from the Commission and the pressing nature of th~~emphasises that the Agency should have gotten legal assurance from the Commission before it proceeded, as this would have pre~~quired recruitments; calls on the Agency and the Commission to im~~vented unnecessary disturbance that came with the withdrawal; calls on the Agency to proeve ~~their communication, closer aligning the Agency’s actions with the Commission’s decision-making processes~~nt taking such actions without legal clarity in the future, to avoid such situations from re-occurring;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Recalls the discharge authority’s conditions in the second discharge report of the Agency for 2019 for release of a budgetary reserve; notes that the reserve has not been created in the Agency’s 2022 budget; calls nevertheless on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the progress made towards the six conditions formulated by the discharge authority;deleted

Amendment 97 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA, Markus PIEPER, Jeroen LENAERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Recalls the discharge authority’s conditions in the second discharge report of the Agency for 2019 for release of a budgetary reserve; notes that the reserve has not been created in the Agency’s 2022 budget; recalls ~~nevertheless on~~the request to the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the progress made towards the sixeven conditions formulated by the discharge authority;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30 a. Notes that the Commission has informed the discharge authority about significant improvements in the organisation and administration of the Agency and that the cooperation and coordination between the Agency and the Commission as well as across the different areas, including the fundamental rights officer, functions much better compared to 2 years ago;

Amendment 99 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Recalls that on 15 June 2021, the European Ombudsman concluded that there had been delay on the part of the Agency in implementing the important changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; Notes that the European Ombudsman handled 13 cases that relate to the Agency, six on public access to documents, six on human resources management and one related to fundamental rights; notes that the Ombudsman did not provide recommendations in six cases, that the implementation of four recommendations is ongoing and that in three cases the recommendation has already been implemented;

source: 704.748

2022/08/29 LIBE 54 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Recommends to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the 'Agency') for the financial year 2020 in light of grave concerns;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Regret~~Notes that the call to suspend the Agency’s support for return-related operations from Hungary for as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not been fulfilled; is deeply concerned that the Agency’s management board has still not adopted a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, especially in the light of developments in Greeceaccording to the document "Reflection on the current legal and operational developments" released by the Agency in July 2022, no complaint or serious incident report has been received by Frontex in any of the returns by Hungary supported by Frontex so far, neither from individuals or from any organisation; congratulates Hungary and Greece for their vital work in protecting Europe's borders to combat the flood of migrants; urges the EU to support these Member States;

Amendment 11 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets that the call to suspend the Agency’s support for return-related operations from Hungary for as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not been fulfilled; ~~is deeply concerned that the Agency’s management board has still not adopted a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896~~notes the adoption of the Standard Operating Procedures for Article 46, in the form of an Executive Director Decision in January 2022; highlights the importance of implementing these procedures abiding by the highest standards of respecting fundamental rights, especially in ~~the~~ light of reported developments in Greece;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets that the call to suspend the Agency’s support for return-related operations from Hungary for as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not been fulfilled; calls on the Agency to suspend those operations in Hungary immediately; is deeply concerned that the Agency’s management board has still not adopted a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, especially in the light of developments in Lithuania, Latvia and Greece;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Urges the Agency to implement correctly Article 46; notes in that regard with concern that the Agency despite reports by the Fundamental Rights Officer that Lithuanian laws were incompatible with EU and international law, which was confirmed by the ECJ in its Judgment on 30 June 2022, failed to act in accordance with Article 46, and has led the Agency's staff to being complicit of fundamental rights violations; regrets that even after the ECJ judgement, Article 46 was not invoked and operational redeployment was justified only on the basis of operational needs; calls for a suspension of the Agency's operations in Lithuania and Latvia till their laws are in line with the EU acquis; reiterates its call to thoroughly evaluate its operations in Greece, in light of reports by OLAF, institutions of Member States, the Council of Europe and the UN, that show that the Agency was carrying out joint border surveillance operations in sections where at the time, fundamental rights violations were taking place; calls, given those evidences, for the immediate suspension of operations of the Agency in Greece;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that the Agency has postponed the deadline to fully implement recommendation 1of the European Court of Auditors' special report No 8/2021, concerning the improvement of the information exchange framework and of the European situational picture, to 2023, beyond the timeframe for the implementation set out in the Court’s special report (mid-2022);

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Points that, as reported by the media, OLAF investigators detailed "how Frontex used European taxpayer money to fund pushbacks in at least six instances" and that this was concealed "from all subsequent inquiries made by the European Parliament and Frontex’s Management Board"; highlights that in April 2022, a new investigation coordinated by Lighthouse reports showed that the Agency was involved in the illegal pushbacks of at least 957 refugees between March 2020 and September 2021; calls for an urgent re-examination by the Agency of all potential incidents based on the findings of the OLAF report, including the ones that were not categorized as a potential fundamental rights violation;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Expresses its deep concern about the Agency’s proposed updated rules on PeDRA, or ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which would purportedly allow for the bulk collection of sensitive personal data from migrants and those seeking international protection in the EU in contravention of EU law; seeks immediate clarification of the Agency’s intentions in that regard;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Highlights that new media reports published on 7 July 2022 showed that the Agency side-lined their own data protection watchdogs in pursuing an expansion of “intrusive” data collection from migrants and asylum seekers under the PeDRA programme, including genetic data and sexual orientation to store, analyse and share that data with Europol and security agencies of member state; condemns the decision by the Agency's former Executive Director, the European Commission and Frontex Management board to ignore the Agency’s own Data Protection Officer, who warned repeatedly that the PeDRA expansion “cannot be achieved by breaching compliance with EU legislation” and that the programme posed “a serious risk of function creep in relation to the Agency’s mandate.” as well as the decision to not consult EDPS despite warnings of the serious risks of the programme by the DPO;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Reiterates, once again, that the dramatic increase in competences and budget which the Agency has seen in recent years must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and especially on the Agency's commitment to Union law;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Highlights that the Agency’s aerial surveillance in the Central Mediterranean and its direct transmission of information to the so-called Libyan coast guards in order for the persons to be intercepted at sea, as reported by media, is making the Agency complicit of what has been described by the UN as “crimes against humanity” in Libya that are conducted against migrants in detention centres after they have been pulled back to Libya;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1 a. Welcomes the resignation of the Agency's former Executive Director and his former head of cabinet following the release of the first OLAF report; deplores the absence of disciplinary proceedings against them despite the recommendations of OLAF in this regard; condemns the lies of its former Executive Director to the European Parliament at different occasions;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2 e. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes further that one action brought in May 2021 was brought on behalf of two asylum-seekers - an unaccompanied minor and a woman - who 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; is shocked that the applicants were also victims of other pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; notes that another action was brought in October 2021 on behalf of a Syrian family that was returned from Greece to Turkey on a flight operated by the Agency and the Greek authorities; highlights that another case was brought in March 2022 to the Court by A.H. who landed on a Greek island with 21 other asylum-seekers in April 2020, and, instead of processing their asylum claims, were subsequently abducted, detained, forcibly transferred to and abandoned by the authorities on a raft left adrift for 17 hours with no life-vests, water, food, means of navigation or communication while a plane of the Agency surveilled from above.

Amendment 21 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)

2 f. Expresses serious concerns regarding the fact that an interpreter employed by the Agency was assaulted by Greek border guards in Greece alongside at least one hundred third-country nationals and was then forced, together with other persons, across the border into Turkey; strongly deplores that there has still not been any conclusion by the agency nor Greek authorities of the investigation in this specific case that was reported in November 2021 to the Frontex Management Board; highlights that this episode is another credible evidence of the systematic violations of fundamental rights that occur in Greece and the absence of appropriate actions taken by the agency to address those violations;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the decision to partially grant access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;deleted

Amendment 23 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes~~Notice the decision to partially grant access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation ~~conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency,~~into the Agency's activities to the members of Parliament’'s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; ~~regret~~denounces the lcon~~g delay taken towards grant~~clusions of this investigation; requests, ing that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; recommends, given those findings, toe interests of transparency and impartiality, that the answers given by the former Executive Director, Mr. Leggeri, at his hearing before the Frontex Management Board in connection with this investigation also has to be published; pending these answers, recommends that Parliament’'s Committee on Budgetary Control ~~not to~~ grant discharge for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 24 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes the decision to partially gran~~Regrets that access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, is only granted to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; considers that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and requests that the report is made publicly available without further delay; deeply regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented and the lack of accountability; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant the discharge to the Agency for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the decision to partially grant access to the first report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on ~~the~~part of its investigations conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access that hampered members scrutiny of the agency; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation that looked notably at the handling of reports of fundamental rights incidents including push-backs; expresses its utter ~~disappointment in~~condemnation of the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; ~~recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020~~deeply regrets that the Agency has seen its budget expanded in the last years from EUR 118 million in 2011 to an annual average of EUR 900 million for the 2021- 2027 period despite serious concerns over the lack of implementation of its regulation, its management, and fundamental rights violations, now all confirmed by the findings of the OLAF report; highlights that the Parliament should not have increased the budget nor granted discharge to the agency in the previous years and should not grant discharge for the financial year 2020; calls on the new interim executive director, the deputy EDs and the Fundamental Rights Officer to urgently be granted access to the report in light of its crucial importance for their work; reiterates its call for public access to the OLAF investigation in light of its public interest;

Amendment 27 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the decision to partially grant access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; underlines that the OLAF report has confirmed the fears and concerns raised by many within the European Parliament over the last number of years; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the decision to partially grant access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; highlights that access to the findings of the OLAF report is essential in making an informed decision by the discharge authority; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 29 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Is deeply concerned about the recent revelations by the media that consulted the OLAF report1a, according to which, Frontex was completely aware of illegal pushbacks by Greece and even supported and participated in financing them; considers totally unacceptable that the Agency has been trying to cover up this illegal and sometimes brutal practice and recalls that this situation makes the Agency a direct partner; urges the Commission to take serious responsibility and clear steps to ensure that this situation does not happen again and to hold EU Agencies accountable for human rights violations; _________________ 1a https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/todesfalle- eu-grenze-die-praxis-der-gewaltsamen- pushbacks-a-2a7c82b5-2efe-4b2f-84b5- 3404c82c8124; https://www.alestiklal.net/en/view/14539/t his-is-how-frontex-covered-up-illegal- migrant-pushbacks-by-greek-authorities

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 30 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Points that two additional OLAF reports are expected to be presented in 2022 in relation to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency; calls for immediate access of Members of Parliament to these additional reports when they will be finalised to ensure Members scrutiny as well as of all executive staff of the agency that need to access the report to ensure a correct implementation of the agency's budget in the future;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the appointment of the interim executive director on 1 July 2022~~Regrets that the Strategic Risk Analysis 2022 report published by the Executive Director ad interim of the Agency proposes the future development of legal pathways for migration to Europe in response to possible future global geographic imbalances; condemns this promotion of migration by the Agency;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the appointment of the interim executive director on 1 July 2022; recalls the repeated criticism from the Parliament concerning the Agency’s failure to protect the fundamental rights of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly among numerous reports and journalistic investigations of its complicity in illegal pushbacks, which led to the resignation of the former executive director; reaffirms that this situation should not happen again; strongly requests monitoring mechanisms to be put in place and to keep the Parliament informed about the measures applied to ensure non-repetition of fundamental rights’ violations;

Amendment 33 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the appointment of the interim executive director on 1 July 2022; calls urgently on the Agency's management board to grant her as well as the FRO access to the OLAF report to ensure a correct implementation of the Agency's budget and regulation in the future;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Is deeply concerned by the expressed intentions of several staff members to quit the Agency due to the organisational culture and overall working environment; highlights that a particular focus should be placed on identifying, reporting and combatting sexual harassment, especially in light of whistleblower reportings of such alleged cases; notes that out of the 17 cases of alleged sexual harassment reported in 2020, 15 were closed without further follow-up while in 2 cases investigations have been initiated; welcomes the expressed commitment of the ad-interim executive director to remain vigilant and take additional measures in this field; expresses shock and deep concern about the case of suicide of a staff member, related to alleged practices of sexual harassment and welcomes the reopening of this case by the new executive leadership; calls on the executive director to conduct a full and detailed investigation about this particularly severe and worrying case, to keep the discharge authority informed about the results of this investigation and to fully cooperate with criminal investigation authorities in the process; calls on the executive director to conduct a thorough investigation into the implementation of existing procedures against sexual harassment, to report back to the discharge authority about the findings and to present a detailed action plan with measures ensuring zero tolerance towards sexual harassment in both its administrative and operational activities;

Amendment 35 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Is deeply concerned about the revelations of the ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis’ (PeDRA) according to which, the Programme allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers, including genetic data, religious beliefs and sexual orientation, to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; expresses further concern that the expanded surveillance programme (PeDRA) not only targets non-suspects, but it loosens restrictions concerning the exchange of personal data between Frontex and Europol1a; deeply regrets the lack of impact assessments and evaluation before reform of the mandates of the Agency was proposed by the Commission; calls on the suspension of this program until further scrutiny; _________________ 1a https://balkaninsight.com/2022/07/07/eus- frontex-tripped-in-plan-for-intrusive- surveillance-of-migrants/

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes with concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle that issue;deleted

Amendment 37 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the acknowledge~~Condemns the harassment byof the ~~acting e~~former Executive dDirector of the ~~standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made~~Agency and countries in ther presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes with concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle that issue front line of the flood of migrants, such as Hungary, Poland or Greece, which are protecting the continent; states that this harassment is the work of the European Commission and the European Parliament; demands that it cease; expects the Agency to be able to carry out its work of defending the borders of the European Union with the support of the European institutions;

Amendment 38 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive direct~~Recalls that the annual report ofn the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes wimplementation of Regulation (EU) No 656/2014, establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the Agency on activities carried out in 2021, indicates that the Agency has ensured the application of provisions of this Regulation in iths co~~ncern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle that issue~~ordinated maritime operations;

Amendment 39 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings and that there is proper follow-up, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; ~~expect~~urges decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes with concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; ~~expect~~urges a detailed strategy to tackle that issue to be implemented before the end of 2022; reminds the Agency of the importance of adhering to the Staff Regulations;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Deeply regrets that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, asStates that the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’), under pressure from the European Parliament and the European Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made by the Agency in that respect; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions increases the risk of, only serves to transform it into a committee to help migrants, whereas its role is to protect the European borders; affirms that the absence of recruitment of monitors or the attribution of a grade to them cannot be a reason for refusaling to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 40 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; welcomes also her commitment to transparency; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes ~~with concern~~ the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle ~~that issue~~all the issues that appear to have become structural over the years;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Welcomes the actions taken by the Frontex executive management team, during the transition period, with the aim of handing over a better functioning Agency to the next Executive Director, once appointed by the Management Board; reiterates that clarity, transparency, open dialogue and communication both internally and externally, the delegation of responsibilities and tasks, as well as abiding by high standards of ethics and respect for fundamental rights are essential for changing the organisational culture within the Agency, ensuring good governance and improving its functioning towards a full implementation of its mandate, as established by the EBCG Regulation; reminds that this is a collective effort which requires the sincere cooperation of the executive management, the Agency's Management Board and the Commission; reiterates Parliament's support within this process;

Amendment 42 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes with strong concern the media reports in August 2022 whereby the Agency is accused of exploiting cultural mediators by using a contractor who allegedly offers them an effective wage of less than €2.50 an hour, considering that they need to be available 24/7; points the petition initiated by cultural mediators in this regard as well as their complaint to the EU Ombudswoman;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Highlights the increased role that the Agency has had to pay in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; welcomes in this regard the signature of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Moldova and the assistance given to Chisinau in managing migratory flows;

Amendment 44 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the management board and Commission to recruit a new executive director as soon as possible; before advancing this recruitment, invites the management board to commit to increased transparency and accountability to Parliament, to be confirmed through a written exchange; recalls that public access to OLAF reports, in an appropriate format for public use, as well as the full implementation of all recommendations by Parliament, and in particular by its Frontex Scrutiny Working Group, should form part of such a commitment of the management board to transparency and accountability.

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. C~~alls on the m~~onsiders that the Agency's Management Board has failed in its mission to uphold the respect for fundamental rights by not acting, and thereby bears responsibility for the deterioration of fundamental rights standards of the Agency; calls on the Management bBoard and the Commission to ~~recruit a new executive director as soon as possible~~ensure that the Agency stops being involved and/or covering up fundamental rights violations, and to recruit a new executive director as soon as possible who should be strongly committed to ensure the respect of fundamental rights in all activities of the Agency.

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the management board and Commission to recruit a new executive director as soon as possible who truly commits with fundamental rights compliance; further calls on the management board and the Commission to ensure that the recruitment procedure is fully transparent and takes into full account the EP indications.

Amendment 47 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the management board and Commission to recruit a new executive director as soon as possible.; in line with the Parliament’s prerogatives, invites the management board and the Commission to actively engage with the Parliament in this process;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the management board and Commission to recruit as soon as possible a new eExecutive dDirector ~~as soon as possible.~~whose priority is the protection of the European Union's external borders;

Amendment 49 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Recalls that, given its tasks of providing strategic direction, appointing the Executive Director and more generally overseeing the Agency’s activities, an efficient management board is crucial to guarantee the Agency’s proper functioning; invites the Agency to ensure that selection procedures and criteria for the management board’s members allow to designate candidates with the right experience, knowledge and expertise; calls on the management board to make sure new members are properly trained to fulfil their role; recommends to the management board to establish specialised working groups and preparatory bodies to facilitate its work and ensure continuous follow-up of important issues; welcomes the setting-up of the management board’s Working Group on Fundamental Rights and Legal Operational Aspects of Operations; invites the management board to develop permanent structures to guarantee the Agency’s compliance with its fundamental rights obligations;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Notes the difficulties faced by the Agency in the fulfilment of its fundamental rights obligations due to the division of responsibilities between the Agency and host Member States; urges the Agency and member states to further develop structures of cooperation, information sharing and exchange of best practices;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Calls on the Agency to ensure that standing corps officers are recruited amongst a diversity of nationalities; underlines the importance of border guards and coastguards’ proper training, including with regard to fundamental rights and access to international protection;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Recalls the important role of the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum in ensuring the Agency’s compliance with its fundamental rights obligations; invites the management board and the executive director to actively involve the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum in relevant processes and to take their opinions and recommendations into consideration in their decision-making;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6 e. Emphasises the importance of an effective and accessible complaints mechanism for breaches of fundamental rights; calls on the fundamental rights officer and the executive director to rely on a diversity of sources when investigating a serious incident report; recommends that reports of similar serious incidents be carefully handled, particularly regarding communication with the host member state, and that they be followed up on by the management board; urges the Agency to commit to increased transparency regarding serious incident reports, reports on the use of force and individual complaints;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)

6 f. Welcomes the improvement of information exchange between the Agency and the European Parliament during the fact-finding investigation of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group; calls on the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum to regularly report back on their activities to the European Parliament; urges the management board and the executive director to commit to increased dialogue and transparency with the Parliament regarding the Agency’s activities.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Deeply regrets that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, as Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made by the Agency in that respect; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions ~~increases the risk of refusal~~together with the alleged fundamental rights violations and the fact that the OLAF report has not been made public yet, makes clear that the Agency does not meet the requirements to be granted the discharge for the financial year 2020; recalls that the Agency's budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €693 million in 2022, and that a significant increase of the Agency’s budget is still foreseen for 2023; further recalls that the Agency is the JHA Agency that receives by far a larger amount of EU budget; considers that it is a pre-condition that JHA Agencies, which receive EU budget to carry out their activities, fully comply with fundamental rights;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Deeply regret~~Condemns that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; highlights in this regard the concluding findings of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group indicating that the Executive Director of the Agency has caused a significant and unnecessary delay in the recruitment of fundamental rights monitors; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, as Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made very recently by the Agency in that respect~~; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions increases the risk of refusal to grant discharge for the financial year 2020~~;

Amendment 8 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Philippe OLIVIER, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Deeply regrets that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, as Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made by the Agency in that respect; insists that the Agency should ensure - from now on - that fundamental rights monitors are recruited at AD grade and encourages the Agency to further increase the number of fundamental rights monitors beyond the initial 40, which is a threshold and not a ceiling; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions increases the risk of refusal to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

source: 735.754

2022/09/07 CONT 76 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Grants/~~Refuses to grant the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the resignation of the executive director of the Agency on 28 April 2022 and his former head of cabinet following the release of the OLAF report; deplores the absence of disciplinary proceedings against them despite the recommendations of OLAF in this regard; condemns the lies of its former Executive Director to the European Parliament at different occasions; welcomes the appointment by the management Board of an executive director ad interim as of 1 July 2022; notes the vacancy notice for a new executive director of the Agency published on 21 June 2022; calls on the management board of the Agency to appoint an executive director as soon as possible who should be strongly committed to ensure the respect of fundamental rights in all activities of the Agency;

Amendment 11 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the briefing note on ‘Actions taken by Frontex management during transition period’ that was sent to the Committee on Budgetary Control on 27 June 2022 that informs the discharge authority on the measures taken by the interim management of the Agency, in anticipation of the appointment of a new executive director; welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and appreciates her commitment to ensuring that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to changing the organisational culture of the Agency, including making sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings and that there is proper follow-up, to establishing a dialogue with the members of staff, to encouraging delegation of powers and to building relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; further welcomes also her commitment to transparency; calls on the interim management and on the to be appointed executive director to continue with pro- actively informing the discharge authority on its response to its observations and recommendations;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the briefing note on ‘Actions taken by Frontex management during transition period’ that was sent to the Committee on Budgetary Control on 27 June 2022 that informs the discharge authority on the measures taken by the interim management of the Agency, in anticipation of the appointment of a new executive director; calls on the interim management and on the to be appointed executive director to continue with pro- actively informing the discharge authority on its response to its observations and recommendations;

Amendment 13 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Takes note that a commitment has been undertaken in the briefing note from 27 June 2022 for preparation of an action plan on the remedial actions presented in this document under the lead of the executive director ad interim; expects the action plan to be submitted to the Parliament, as well as an update on its implementation to be presented regularly; considers the progress in implementing the action plan as an important condition for the discharge to the Agency;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the executive management of the Agency to continue with the implementation of the Agency’s mandate; reiterates that clarity, transparency, open dialogue and communication both internally and externally, the delegation of responsibilities and tasks, as well as abiding by high standards of ethics and respect for fundamental rights are essential for changing the organisational culture within the Agency, ensuring good governance and improving its functioning towards a full implementation of its mandate, as established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; reminds that this is a collective effort which requires the sincere cooperation of the executive management, the Agency's Management Board and the Commission; reiterates Parliament's support within this process; recalls remarks made in the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 13 July 2022 that the fast growing pace imposed by the new mandate of the Agency caused difficulties that were, with hind sight, underestimated, leading to delays in recruitment in particular; notes that the current corrective coefficient has a negative impact on recruitment and calls for a revision taking into account the reality of cost of life in order to improve geographical balance within the Agency;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the executive management of the Agency to continue with the implementation of the Agency’s mandate; recalls remarks made in the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 13 July 2022 that the fast growing pace imposed by the new mandate of the Agency caused difficulties that were, with hind sight, underestimated, leading to delays in recruitment in particular; reiterates the findings of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group, highlighting that recruitment delays were unnecessary, and that the deliberate actions of the former executive director against strengthening the fundamental rights capacity of the Agency were instrumental to this delay;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the executive management of the Agency to ~~continue with~~ensure the implementation of the Agency’s mandate~~; recalls remarks made in the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 13 July 2022 that the fast growing pace imposed by the new m~~ fully complies with fundamental rights; considers that the Agency’s management board has failed in its mission to uphold respect for fundamental rights by not acting, and thereby bears also the responsibility for the deterioration of fundamental rights standaterds of the Agency; ca~~used difficulties that were, with hind sight, underestimated, leading to delays in recruitment in particular~~lls on the management board and the Commission to ensure that the Agency stops being involved in covering up fundamental rights violations;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to provide clear definitions and guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of the Agency's mandate, particularly border control aspects, to ensure an adequate and proper use of the Agency's financial means;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reiterates its concern that the executive director of the Agency used in violation of Financial Regulation a private plane on 4 March 2020, costing the agency 8500 EUR;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Notes with strong concern the media reports in August 2022 whereby the Agency is accused of exploiting cultural mediators by using a contractor who allegedly offers them an effective wage of less than €2.50 an hour, considering that they need to be available 24/7; points to the petition initiated by cultural mediators in this regard as well as their complaint to the European Ombudsman;

Amendment 2 #

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Grants/~~Refuses to grant the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 20 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the report of the Agency on the implementation of the seven conditions formulated for the 2019 discharge of the Agency; notes ~~that~~however that only five of the seven conditions are reported as being implemented by the Agency; regrets to note that two conditions still have not been fully met;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the report of the Agency on the implementation of the seven conditions formulated for the 2019 discharge of the Agency; notes that five of the seven conditions are reported as being implemented by the Agency; regrets to note that two conditions still have not been fully met;

Amendment 22 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the report of the Agency on the implementation of the seven conditions formulated for the 2019 discharge of the Agency; ~~notes that fiv~~deeply regrets that only three of the seven conditions are ~~reported as~~ being implemented by the Agency~~; regrets to note~~ and that ~~two~~four conditions still have not been fully met;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Not~~Deplores that one of the conditions not yet met is the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs), as on 1 June 2022, 31 FRMs were in service, with three more to take office on 1 September 2022, more than one and a half year after the deadline set in the Agency’s founding regulation (5 December 2020); notes that the Agency now strives to have 46 FRMs; notes the explanation provided by the Agency that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institution; highlights that according to Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, the Agency had the obligation to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs) by 5 December 2020; recognises the recent progress made by the Agency in the recruitment and welcomes the intention to operate a first increase in the number of FRMs from 40 to 46; highlights that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides the framework for further increases in the number of FRMs, as the Agency expands; reiterates its calls on the Agency to conduct all future FRMs recruitments and appointments at AD level; notes the explanation provided by the Agency that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institutions; underlines however the findings of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group indicating that the former executive director of the Agency had caused a significant and unnecessary delay in the recruitment of FRMs;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Note~~Regrets that one of the conditions not yet met is the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs), as on 1 ~~June~~September 2022, 314 FRMs were in service, ~~with three more to take office on 1 September 2022,~~ more than one and a half year after the deadline set in the Agency’s founding regulation (5 December 2020); notes that the Agency now strives to have 46 FRMs; ~~notes the explanation provided by the Agency that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institutions~~regrets that even though the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group has established that the recruitment of FRMs was unnecessarily delayed by the Agency’s previous executive director, the Agency continues to contend that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institutions; urges the Agency to meet its legal obligations on this matter as soon as possible and keep the discharge authority informed about the progress made;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that one of the conditions not yet met is the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs), as on 1 June 2022, 31 FRMs were in service, with three more to take office on 1 September 2022, more than one and a half year after the deadline set in the Agency’s founding regulation (5 December 2020); notes that the Agency now strives to have 46 FRMs; notes the explanation provided by the Agency that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institutions; highlights in this regard the concluding findings of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group indicating that the executive director of the Agency has caused a significant and unnecessary delay in the recruitment of FRMs; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit FRMs and to appoint them at AD level, as Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly called for;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that one of the conditions not yet met is the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs), as on 1 June 2022, 31 FRMs were in service, with three more to take office on 1 September 2022, more than one and a half year after the deadline set in the Agency’s founding regulation (5 December 2020); ~~not~~welcomes that the Agency now strives to have 46 FRMs; notes the explanation provided by the Agency that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institutions and acknowledges its commitment to recruit the remaining FRMs as quickly as possible; notes that the FRO has expressed content with the procedure;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Note~~Regrets that one of the conditions not yet met is the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs), as on 1 June 2022, 31 FRMs were in service, with three more to take office on 1 September 2022, more than one and a half year after the deadline set in the Agency’s founding regulation (5 December 2020); ~~note~~insists that the Agency ~~now strives to have 46 FRMs; notes the explanation provided by the Agency that the delay was due to lengthy recruitment procedures in Union institution~~should ensure - from now on - that FRMs are recruited at AD grade and encourages the Agency to further increase the number of FRMs beyond the initial 40, which is a threshold and not a ceiling; notes that the Agency now strives to have 46 FRMs;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Regrets that the Agency has not evaluated its activities in Greece, even though reports by institutions of Member States, the Council of Europe and the United Nations show that the Agency was carrying out operations in sections where simultaneously, fundamental rights violations were taking place; regrets that the discharge authority has addressed this matter in its first 2020 discharge report on the Agency, but that the Agency has not provided any substantial information on how it plans to follow up on this; emphasises the urgency of this matter in light of the developments in Greece; urges the Agency to conduct a thorough evaluation as soon as possible and keep the discharge authority updated;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Regrets that the Agency has not yet revised the SIR SOP; notes that this was initially planned for the second quarter of 2022 but that this has, according to the Agency due to the war in Ukraine, been delayed to the third quarter of 2022;

Amendment 3 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020 /~~ Points out that a proposal to close the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020 must be submitted at a subsequent part-session;

Amendment 30 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the ~~second~~fourth condition not yet met is the call on the Agency to suspend its support-related activities in Hungary~~, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/18961~~ ; is appalled that the Agency continues to choose not to act in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council1and in line with the conclusions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in infringement procedures against Hungary; notes that the Agency argues that, instead of suspending the support- related activities, it rather takes additional safeguarding measures to get assurance from the Hungarian authorities that fundamental rights have been respected, and monitors this closely; ~~notes that the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officers recommend partially suspending return operations and additional safeguards when conductions return operations;~~ is concerned about the extent to which the Agency’s approach relies on Hungary’s assurances; notes that the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer stresses that the continuous support of the Agency in Hungary can implicate the Agency in the violation of the non-refoulement principle, and recommends the Agency to suspend its support-related activities in Hungary, and build in additional safeguards if the Agency would nonetheless continue to operate; stresses that the Agency has in no way shown how reversing Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and continuing operational presence helps to promote respect for fundamental rights and reduce the violation of it, and instead of that chooses not to comply to the law on no evidential basis; reiterates its call upon the Agency to suspend its operations in Hungary; _________________ 1 Regulation (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 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the second condition not yet met is the call on the Agency to suspend its support-related activities in Hungary, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/18961 ; notes that the Agency, instead of suspending the support-related activities, rather takes additional safeguarding measures to get assurance from the Hungarian authorities that fundamental rights have been respected, and monitors this closely; notes that the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officers recommend partially suspending return operations and additional safeguards when conductions return operations; underlines however that the Agency must refrain from participating in any operations governed by national legislation provisions that had been deemed incompatible with the Union law by the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter - Court of Justice) until all such provisions are in line with the acquis communautaire; further notes with concern that the Court of Justice established through its judgement of 30 June 2022 that Lithuanian legislation was incompatible with Union and international law; deplores the fact that the Agency has failed to act in accordance with Article 46, even after the Court of Justice judgement; notes the progress made by the Agency through the adoption of the detailed Standard Operating Procedures for Article 46, in the form of an Executive Director Decision in January 2022; highlights the importance of implementing these procedures abiding by the highest standards of respecting fundamental rights; _________________ 1 Regulation (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 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the second condition not yet met is the call on the Agency to suspend its support-related activities in Hungary, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/18961 ; notes that the Agency, instead of suspending the support-related activities, rather takes additional safeguarding measures to get assurance from the Hungarian authorities that fundamental rights have been respected, and monitors this closely; notes that the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officers recommend partially suspending return operations and additional safeguards when conductions return operations; recalls and supports the argument expressed by the Commission in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July that a presence of the Agency in Hungary allows the Agency to monitor and control possible violations of fundamental rights against refugees or asylum seekers by Hungarian authorities at the border; emphasises the importance of border control in the Agency’s mandate and the training of and cooperation with national authorities to implement the Union standards as foreseen in the legislation; _________________ 1 Regulation (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 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Note~~Regrets that the second condition not yet met is the call on the Agency to suspend its support-related activities to return operations in Hungary, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/18961 and the clear guidance given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the executive director to implement this article and suspend the activities in Hungary; notes that the Agency, instead of suspending the support- related activities, rather takes additional safeguarding measures to get assurance from the Hungarian authorities that fundamental rights have been respected, and monitors this closely; notes that the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officers recommends partially suspending return operations and additional safeguards when conducti~~ons~~ng return operations; _________________ 1 Regulation (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 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. C~~oncludes that the Agency has implemented most of the co~~alls on the Agency to adopt promptly a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in line with the recommendiations formulated by the discharge authority in a satisfactory manner; calls nevertheless on the Agency to adopt promptly a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in line with the recommendations made by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officermade by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer in its annual report for 2022; urges the Agency to implement correctly Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; notes in this regard with concern that the Agency, despite reports by the Fundamental Rights Officer that Lithuanian laws were incompatible with the Union and international law, which was confirmed by the Court of Justice of European Union in its judgment on 30 June 2022, failed to act in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, and has led the Agency's staff to being complicit in fundamental rights violations; regrets that even after the Court of Justice of European Union judgement, Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 was not invoked and operational redeployment was justified only on the basis of operational needs; calls for a suspension of the Agency's operations in Lit~~s annual report for 2022;~~ huania and Latvia until their laws are in line with the Union acquis;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Concludes with deep regret that the Agency has not implemented ~~most~~the majority of the conditions formulated by the discharge authority ~~in a satisfactory manner; calls nevertheless on~~, and that important conditions are outstanding; stresses that meeting those conditions is a crucial aspect for the discharge authority to grant discharge for the financial year 2020; urges the Agency to adopt promptly a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in line with the recommendations made by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer in its annual report for 2022, and inform the discharge authority about the progress made;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Concludes that the Agency has implemented most of the conditions formulated by the discharge authority in a satisfactory manner; calls nevertheless on the Agency to adopt promptly a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in line with the recommendations made by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer in its annual report for 2022;

Amendment 38 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Concludes that the Agency has implemented most of the conditions formulated by the discharge authority in a satisfactory manner~~; calls nevertheless on the Agency~~, but the full implementation of all conditions is still not achieved; calls on the Agency to fulfil the remaining two conditions, as well as to adopt promptly a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in line with the recommendations made by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer in its annual report for 2022;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Concludes that the Agency has implemented most of the conditions formulated by the discharge authority in a satisfactory manner; calls nevertheless on the Agency to ~~adopt~~ promptly a ~~detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in line with the recomme~~ct and comply with all condaitions ~~made by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer in its annual report for 2022~~stipulated by the Parliament in its previous discharge resolutions;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

— having regard to the OLAF report finalised on 15 February 2022, and made available in July 2022 to Members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and of the Committee on Budgetary Control,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Reiterates its call to thoroughly evaluate its operations in Greece, in light of reports by OLAF, institutions of Member States, the Council of Europe and the UN, showing that the Agency was carrying out joint border surveillance operations in sections where at the time, fundamental rights violations were taking place; calls, given those evidences, for the immediate suspension of operations of the Agency in Greece;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Reiterates, once again, that the dramatic increase in competences and budget which the Agency has seen in recent years must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and especially on the Agency's commitment to Union law;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that OLAF and the Agency’s management board have made an anonymised version of the OLAF final report on the Agency’s activities; notes that this has only been made available to the Members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; recalls that having access to that report was deemed necessary by the discharge authority to take a fully informed decision on the 2020 discharge; regrets the long delay taken to granting the access; stresses that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest; notes that it has by now been clarified that OLAF is the report’s owner and that all pending actions following up on the report’s findings have been closed; requests that since the Agency’s conduct concerns the handling of taxpayers’ money, the report is made publicly available without further delay;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that OLAF and the Agency’s management board have made an anonymised version of the OLAF final report on the Agency’s activities available to the Members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; recalls that having access to that report was deemed necessary by the discharge authority to take a fully informed decision on the 2020 discharge; regrets the long delay taken towards granting access that hampered Members' scrutiny of the Agency; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation that looked notably at the handling of reports of fundamental rights incidents including push-backs; expresses its utter condemnation of the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented;

Amendment 44 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that OLAF and the Agency’s management board have made an anonymised version of the OLAF final report on the Agency’s activities available to the Members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; deeply regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; underlines that this delay has hampered Members’ scrutiny of the Agency; recalls that having access to that report was deemed necessary by the discharge authority to take a fully informed decision on the 2020 discharge;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Deeply regrets that the Agency has seen its budget expanded in the last years from EUR 118 million in 2011 to an annual average of EUR 900 million for the 2021-2027 period despite serious concerns over the lack of implementation of its regulation, its management, and fundamental rights violations, now all confirmed by the findings of the OLAF report; highlights that the Parliament should not have increased the budget nor granted discharge to the Agency in the previous years and should not grant discharge for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9 b. Calls on the acting executive director, the deputy executive directors and the Fundamental Rights Officer to urgently be granted access to the report in light of its crucial importance for their work; reiterates its call for public access to the OLAF investigation in light of its public interest;

Amendment 47 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the serious concerns raised ~~on the basis of~~by some Members over the years and at the partial presentation of findings from the final report in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 28 February 2022 are indeed confirmed in the final report; points that two additional OLAF final reports are expected to be presented in 2022 in relation to this Agency; calls for immediate access of Members to these additional reports when they will be finalised to ensure Members' scrutiny as well as of all executive staff of the Agency that need to access the report to ensure a correct implementation of the Agency's budget in the future; notes from the statements of the Chair of the Agency’s management board in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July 2022 that some actions have been taken in follow-up to OLAF’s conclusions in the final report; highlights nevertheless that further actions need to be taken to address all the issues raised by this OLAF final report; notes the comments from the Chair of the Agency’s management board, and the Commission’s deputy director- general for Migration and Home Affairs that the report shows the failings of the individuals concerned, and that there is no structural issue; awaits further OLAF final reports to understand the depth of the problem;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the serious concerns raised on the basis of the partial presentation of findings from the final report in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 28 February 2022 are indeed confirmed in the final report; expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented and the lack of accountability; notes from the statements of the Chair of the Agency’s management board in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July 2022 that actions have been taken in follow-up to OLAF’s conclusions in the final report; reiterates its call upon the Agency to present a detailed road map on how it intends to fulfil the outstanding concerns, together with a clear and detailed timeframe for these actions; notes the comments from the Chair of the Agency’s management board, and the Commission’s deputy director-general for Migration and Home Affairs that the report shows the failings of the individuals concerned, and that there is no structural issue; highlights however that the conclusions presented in the report of the OLAF on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, under the former executive leadership, are extremely serious and constitute a substantial reason for a refusal of discharge for the year 2020;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the serious concerns raised on the basis of the partial presentation of findings from the final report in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 28 February 2022 are indeed confirmed in the final report; ~~notes from the statements of the Chair~~stresses that this discharge procedure concerns the 2020 year and since OLAF´s findings also concern 2020, OLAF´s findings are relevant for this discharge procedure regardless of the Agency’´s ~~management board in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July 2022 that actions have be~~actions since the previous Executive Director´s resignation; notes that media reports on the investigation set out how the individuals subject to the investigation knew about fundamen taken in follow-up to OLAF’s conclusions in the final report; notes the comments from the Chair of the Agency’s management board, and the Commission’s deputy director-general for Migration and Home Affairs that the report shows the failings of the individuals concerned, and that there is no structural issuel rights violations from very early onwards, did not address these as they are legally required to, but instead consciously chose to ignore and even conceal the facts, consciously mislead the Parliament, and disrespected the Commission and their own colleagues working on fundamental rights issues; is profoundly concerned about the reported findings of the investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions by the persons subjected to the investigation;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Ombudsman ~~publis~~has held ~~its Decision in OI/4/2021/MHZ on how~~a series of inquiries regarding the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (the ‘Agency’) compliances with its fundamental rights obligations and ~~ensures~~ accountability in relation to its enhanced responsibilities in the cases OI/5/2020/MHZ and OI/4/2021/MHZ and made a series of recommendations to the Agency;

Amendment 50 #

10. Notes that the serious concerns raised on the basis of the partial presentation of findings from the final report in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 28 February 2022 are indeed confirmed in the final report; notes from the statements of the Chair of the Agency’s management board in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July 2022 that actions have been taken in follow-up to OLAF’s conclusions in the final report; notes the comments from the Chair of the Agency’s management board, and the Commission’s deputy director-general for Migration and Home Affairs that the report shows the failings of the individuals concerned, and that there is no structural issueis deeply concerned, by the magnitude of the committed serious misconducts and other irregularities identified by OLAF in the Agency, as well as the level at which they have been committed; considers in this regard that serious remedial actions should be undertaken and that the resolution of the problems discovered by OLAF will take time and will require strong engagement especially by the expected new Executive Director; notes from the statements of the Chair of the Agency’s management board in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July 2022 that actions have been taken in follow-up to OLAF’s conclusions in the final report; expects the Agency’s management to inform the Parliament about its action plan and further actions, as well as about their implementation;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Notes from the statements of the Chair of the Agency’s management board in the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 13 July 2022 that actions have been taken in follow-up to OLAF’s conclusions in the final report; notes with deep concern the comments from the Chair of the Agency’s management board, and the Commission’s Deputy Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs that the report shows the failings of the individuals concerned, and that there is no structural issue; notes that the Agency’s failings are not merely related to individuals; stresses, first of all, that there are structural problems with checks and balances when misconduct by individuals is able to continue for so long; stresses, second of all, that media reports on OLAF findings about Member States pressuring the Agency’s coast guards and concealing pushbacks imply challenges for the Agency beyond the past leadership; is, third of all, deeply concerned about the expressed intentions of several staff to quit the Agency because of the organisational culture and overall working environment, which also points to structural problems; is, fourth of all, concerned about the way the Agency continues to apply Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, as is indicated by the present executive director ad interim´s decision to increase presence in the Aegean Sea despite media reports on OLAF’s findings pointing to persistent fundamental rights violations in this area;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Points that, as reported by the media, OLAF investigators detail "how Frontex used European taxpayer money to fund pushbacks in at least six instances" and that this was concealed "from all subsequent inquiries made by the European Parliament and Frontex’s Management Board"; points to the findings reported by the media that an aerial asset has been withdrawn not to witness push-backs[1]; highlights that in April 2022, a new investigation coordinated by Ligthhouse reports showed that the Agency was involved in the illegal pushbacks of at least 957 refugees between March 2020 and September 2021; calls for an urgent re-examination by the Agency of all potential incidents based on the findings of the OLAF report, including the ones that were not categorised as a potential fundamental rights violation; [1] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/frontex- scandal-classified-report-reveals-full-extent-of-cover-up-a- cd749d04-689d-4407-8939-9e1bf55175fd

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10 b. Recognises that the structural problems that the Agency is confronted with, are legacy issues and that the current and future leadership of the Agency needs to find a way to deal with those issues in order to help the Agency move forward; emphasises that if the Agency´s current leadership will recognise the structural issues and aims to address them, the Agency has the discharge authority´s full support; stresses, however, that if and as long as the Commission and the Agency’s management board continue to regard the OLAF findings as an isolated incident, the structural issues identified as reported in media remain unaddressed, no new and fresh start can be made, and the Agency will continue to fall short in respecting fundamental rights; notes that the discharge authority considers the following matters as crucial in moving forward successfully: a. recognising that the four challenges identified as set out above, are of structural nature and need to be addressed as such; b. complying to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and suspending operations, including in Hungary and in Greece; c. explicating in Joint Operation Plans with Member States how Member States need to cooperate in the handling of SIRs so that these can be addressed effectively, which includes allowing the Agency an access to all relevant sources and assets, including local information sources, that the Agency has the ability to critically review Member States’ assessments of incidents, and that non-compliance from the side of Member States on those matters could lead to a suspending of funding; Stresses that a failure to show substantial progress on those conditions could increase the risk of refusal of granting discharge in the 2021 discharge cycle;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Agency’s management board and executive management to carefully re-assess the content of the OLAF final report and to address any issues that potentially do have a structural character; calls in particular to review ~~issues potentially~~the conclusions on incidents examined by the management board in relatedion to the ~~balance between border control and fundamental rights~~ir compliance with fundamental rights in light of the reported concealing of information to the management board as reported by the media, and on sharing of information within the Agency and between the Agency and the Parliament;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Calls on~~Urges the Agency’s ~~management board and~~ executive management to ~~carefully re-assess~~be granted access to and read the content of the OLAF final report ~~and to address any issues that potentially do have a structural character; calls in particular to review issues potentially~~; urges the Agency and the Commission to acknowledge and address the structural issues mentioned as these seem to related both to the ~~balance between border control and fundamental r~~Agency’s direct operations as well as to oversights, and ~~on sharing of information within the Agency and between the Agency and the Parliament~~ensure that this never happens again; calls upon the Commission and the Agency to inform the discharge authority about how the structural issues will be addressed;

Amendment 57 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Calls on OLAF and the Agency's management board to urgently grant access to the OLAF final report to the acting executive director, the deputy executive directors and the Fundamental Rights Officer, in light of its crucial importance for ensuring a correct implementation of the Agency's budget and regulation in the future; considers that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and requests OLAF to reassess making the report public without further delay, in full compliance with OLAF regulations and data protection legislation;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Acknowledges and highly welcomes the positive change in management style introduced by the Executive Director ad interim who promotes a team-based approach with a consultative and inclusive leadership with the full support of the Management Board and the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO); welcomes the positive role of the new management board Chair and the important contribution by the FRO which has improved the intensity of meetings and support for the Agency;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)

The Court of Auditors' Special Report 08/2021

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas the OLAF final report, as reported by the media, showed that the Parliament and the Agency's management board has had information concealed from them in the framework of their scrutiny work regarding the Agency; whereas the executive director lied to Members of Parliament at a series of hearings;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Notes that the Agency has reported implementation of Recommendation 5 of the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 8/2021 (deadline end of 2021), but is postponing the deadline for implementation of Recommendation 1, regarding the improvement of the information exchange framework and of the European situational picture, by more than a year from mid-2022 to the third and the fourth quarters of 2023; notes further the ongoing/partial implementation of Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 and encourages the Agency to respect the deadline for their implementation by the end of 2022;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)

Involvement in fundamental rights violations

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Notes with deep concern the media reports from July 2022 indicating that the Agency pursued an expansion of intrusive data collection from migrants under the PeDRA programme, including genetic data and sexual orientation, which was shared with the Europol and security agencies of Member States; stresses that this programme does not only target non- suspects, but also loosens the restrictions concerning the exchange of personal data between the Agency and the Europol; highlights the fact that the Data Protection Officer repeatedly warned that this data expansion cannot be achieved without breaching the Union law and recommended to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor; condemns that the Agency ignored this advice and went ahead with it either way; requests the Agency to report to the discharge authority the current status of this matter and keep the discharge authority informed about the steps that will be taken to address it; calls upon the Agency to suspend this programme until further scrutiny;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Highlights that new media reports published on 7 July 2022 showed that the Agency sidelined its own data protection watchdogs in pursuing an expansion of “intrusive” data collection from migrants and asylum seekers under the PeDRA programme, including genetic data and sexual orientation to store, analyse and share that data with the Europol and security agencies of Member States; condemns the decision by the Agency's former Executive Director, the Commission and the Agency's management board to ignore the Agency’s own Data Protection Officer, who warned repeatedly that the PeDRA expansion “cannot be achieved by breaching compliance with Union legislation” and that the programme posed “a serious risk of function creep in relation to the Agency’s mandate.” as well as the decision to not consult European Data Protection Supervisor despite warnings of the serious risks of the programme by the DPO;[1] [1] https://balkaninsight.com/2022/07/07/eus-frontex-tripped- in-plan-for-intrusive-surveillance-of-migrants/

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11 b. Highlights the fact that the Agency’s aerial surveillance in the Central Mediterranean and its direct transmission of information to the so- called Libyan coast guards in order for the persons to be intercepted at sea, as reported by media, is making the Agency complicit of what has been described by the UN as “crimes against humanity” in Libya that are conducted against migrants in detention centers after they have been pulled back to Libya;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11 c. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes further that one action brought in May 2021 was brought on behalf of two asylum-seekers - an unaccompanied minor and a woman - who 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; is shocked that the applicants were also victims of other pushback operations during their attempts to seek protection in the Union; notes that another action was brought in October 2021 on behalf of a Syrian family that was returned from Greece to Turkey on a flight operated by the Agency and the Greek authorities; highlights that another case was brought in March 2022 to the Court by A.H. who landed on a Greek island with 21 other asylum-seekers in April 2020, and, instead of processing their asylum claims, were subsequently abducted, detained, transferred to, and abandoned by the authorities on, a raft left adrift for 17 hours with no life-vests, water, food, means of navigation or communication while an aerial asset of the Agency surveilled from above;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)

11 d. Expresses serious concerns regarding the fact that an interpreter employed by the Agency was assaulted by Greek border guards in Greece alongside at least one hundred third-country nationals and was then forced, together with other persons, across the border into Turkey; strongly deplores that there has still not been any conclusion by the Agency nor Greek authorities of the investigation in this specific case that was reported in November 2021 to the Agency's management board; highlights that this episode is another credible evidence of the systematic violations of fundamental rights that occur in Greece and the absence of appropriate actions taken by the Agency to address those violations;

Amendment 67 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Recalls the European Ombudsman’s decision in its own initiative enquiry on fundamental rights obligations; notes its conclusion that the Agency should ensure a more proactive approach to transparency, including publishing documents that are needed to understand the respective roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in its operations; notes that the Agency cannot share information of a tactical nature that could be abused for human trafficking or other illegal activities; calls on the Agency to sensibly implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations; suggests to the Agency to develop and implement a new code of conduct ensuring full transparency and a good management;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Recalls the European Ombudsman’s decision in its own initiative enquiry on fundamental rights obligations; notes with concern its conclusion that the Agency should ensure a more proactive approach to transparency, including publishing documents that are needed to understand the respective roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in its operations; notes that the Agency cannot share information of a tactical nature that could be abused for human trafficking or other illegal activities; calls on the Agency to sensibly implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and keep the discharge authority informed about the progress made;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Recalls the European Ombudsman’s decision in its own initiative enquiry on fundamental rights obligations; notes its conclusion that the Agency should ensure a more proactive approach to transparency, including publishing documents that are needed to understand the respective roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in its operations; notes that the Agency cannot share information of a tactical nature that could be abused for human trafficking or other illegal activities; calls on the Agency to ~~sensibly~~ implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations;

Amendment 7 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the resignation of the executive director of the Agency on 28 April 2022 ~~and~~, following numerous reports and journalistic investigations exposing wrongdoing particularly in the field of upholding human rights; further notes the appointment by the management Board of an executive director ad interim as of 1 July 2022; notes the vacancy notice for a new executive director of the Agency published on 21 June 2022; calls on the management board of the Agency to appoint an executive director as soon as possible; highlights that the new executive director should commit to ensuring full respect of fundamental rights in all activities of the Agency as well as have high-level administrative and management skills; in line with Parliament's prerogatives, invites the management board and the Commission to actively engage with the Parliament in this process, committing to full transparency and accountability before Parliament;

Amendment 70 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings; welcomes in particular her commitment to transparency; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that the Agency reported to have been notified of 17 cases of alleged harassment in 2020; notes from the Agency’s follow-up to the first 2020 discharge report that two of those 17 cases were opened as informal procedures under the Agency’s manual of procedures for confidential counsellors while the other 15 cases were closed without further follow- up; highlights that a particular focus should be placed on identifying, reporting and combatting sexual harassment, especially in light of whistleblower reportings of such alleged cases; welcomes the statements of the acting executive director in the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control that the Agency remains vigilant in this area and that additional measures have been taken, ~~such as the re-opening of a closed case regarding the suicide of the staff member, to make sure all cases~~ to make sure all cases are properly treated; welcomes the expressed commitment of the ad-interim executive director to remain vigilant and take additional measures in this field; expresses shock and deep concern about the case of suicide of a staff member, related to alleged practices of sexual harassment, mentioned in discussions between Agency officials and Members participating in the mission of the Committee on Budgetary Control to Poland in July 2022, and welcomes the reopening of this case by the new executive leadership; calls on the executive director to conduct a full and detailed investigation about this particularly severe and worrying case, to keep the discharge authority informed about the results of this investigation and to fully cooperate with criminal investigation authorities in the process; calls on the executive director to conduct a thorough investigation into the implementation of existing procedures against sexual harassment, to report back to the discharge ~~properly treated~~authority about the findings and to present a detailed action plan with measures ensuring zero tolerance towards sexual harassment in both its administrative and operational activities;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that the Agency reported to have been notified of 17 cases of alleged sexual harassment in 2020; notes from the Agency’s follow-up to the first 2020 discharge report that only two of those 17 cases were opened as informal procedures under the Agency’s manual of procedures for confidential counsellors ~~while~~; deplores the fact that the other 15 cases were closed without further follow- up; welcomes the statements of the acting executive director in the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control that the Agency remains vigilant in this area and that additional measures have been taken, such as the re- opening of a closed case regarding the suicide of the staff member~~, to make sure all cases are properly treated~~ related to alleged practices of sexual harassment, to make sure all cases are properly treated; calls on the executive director to conduct a full and detailed investigation about this particularly severe and worrying case, to keep the discharge authority informed about the results of this investigation and to fully cooperate with criminal investigation authorities in the process; calls on the executive director to conduct a thorough investigation into the implementation of existing procedures against sexual harassment, to report back to the discharge authority about the findings and to present a detailed action plan with measures ensuring zero tolerance towards sexual harassment in both its administrative and operational activities;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 74 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Commends the staff of the Agency, that has been through a very difficult period, facing challenges about which the acting executive director made statements in the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 30 May 2022; points in particular towards the treatment of the former FRO whose work has been hampered over the years by the former executive management of the Agency, as reported by the media; calls on the executive management of the Agency and on the management board to continue with making the Agency a safe place to work; takes courage from the statements that many staff members reported wrongdoings they witnessed to their superiors and calls on the Agency to make sure that all signals about professional misconduct are taken serious, and properly followed-up;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Commends the staff of the Agency, that has been through a very difficult period, facing challenges about which the acting executive director made statements in the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 30 May 2022; calls on the executive management of the Agency and on the management board to continue with making the Agency a safe place to work; takes courage from the statements that many staff members reported wrongdoings they witnessed to their superiors and calls on the Agency to make sure that all signals about professional misconduct are taken serious, and properly followed-up; insists on the need to have a compulsory training on social harassment for management and for all staff;

Amendment 76 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Commends the staff of the Agency, that has been through a very difficult period, facing challenges about which the acting executive director made statements in the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 30 May 2022; calls on the executive management of the Agency and on the management board to continue with making the Agency a safe place to work that encourages people to speak up; takes courage from the statements that many staff members reported wrongdoings they witnessed to their superiors and calls on the Agency to make sure that all signals about professional misconduct are taken serious, and properly followed-up;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the resignation of the executive director of the Agency on 28 April 2022 and the appointment by the management Board of an executive director ad interim as of 1 July 2022; notes the vacancy notice for a new executive director of the Agency published on 21 June 2022; calls on the management board of the Agency to appoint an executive director as soon as possible; before advancing this recruitment, invites the management board to commit to increased transparency and accountability to Parliament, to be confirmed through a written exchange; recalls that public access to OLAF final reports concerning the Agency, in an appropriate format for public use, as well as the full implementation of all recommendations by Parliament, and in particular by its Frontex Scrutiny Working Group, should form part of such a commitment of the management board to transparency and accountability;

Amendment 9 #