2021/2146(DEC) 2020 discharge: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX)
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Awaiting Parliament's vote
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | CONT |
ZDECHOVSKÝ Tomáš ( EPP)
|
CHINNICI Caterina ( S&D),
STRUGARIU Ramona ( Renew),
EICKHOUT Bas ( Verts/ALE),
KUHS Joachim ( ID),
CZARNECKI Ryszard ( ECR),
OMARJEE Younous ( GUE/NGL)
|
| Committee Opinion | AFET | ||
| Committee Opinion | LIBE |
STRUGARIU Ramona ( Renew)
|
Malin BJÖRK ( GUE/NGL),
Caterina CHINNICI ( S&D),
Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ ( PPE),
Saskia BRICMONT ( Verts/ALE),
Peter KOFOD ( ID),
Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI ( ECR)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Subjects
Events
2022/05/02
Indicative plenary sitting date
2022/04/07
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
2022/03/31
EP - Vote in committee
2022/03/29
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2022/03/03
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2022/02/17
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2022/02/16
CSL - Supplementary non-legislative basic document
Documents
2022/01/18
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2021/10/26
EP - STRUGARIU Ramona (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2021/09/14
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2021/07/29
EP - ZDECHOVSKÝ Tomáš (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2021/06/30
EC - Non-legislative basic document
Documents
2021/06/30
EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Documents
Documents
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE729.976
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE704.748
- Committee opinion: PE702.934
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 06003/2022
- Committee draft report: PE698.988
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2021)0381
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2021)0381
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex COM(2021)0381
- Committee draft report: PE698.988
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: 06003/2022
- Committee opinion: PE702.934
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE704.748
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE729.976
Activities
- Heidi HAUTALA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Petri SARVAMAA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Billy KELLEHER
Plenary Speeches (0)
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 149 |
2021/2146(DEC)
2022/01/19
LIBE
48 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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; re
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
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
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation
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;
Amendment 16 #
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
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following the Parliament’s re
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
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 20
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following Parliament’s resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Agency to
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
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
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
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
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 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
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.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas since December 2019 the Agency has been implementing a new mandate
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31.
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
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) 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) 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 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 #
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 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 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 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 #
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.
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
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
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the
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
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 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 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 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 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 2 a (new) Fundamental rights and follow up to the 2019 discharge cycle
Amendment 64 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 69 #
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 Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
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
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 76 #
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 %);
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 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 #
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 #
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
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 #
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 #
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 #
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
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Notes from the Agency’s replies to
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 5 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
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 Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls the discharge authority’s
Amendment 92 #
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 #
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;
Amendment 95 #
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
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 Amendment 97 #
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
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
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2022-05-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2022-04-08Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| events/3 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
2022-04-02Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| events/2 |
|
2022-03-31Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/5/date |
Old
2022-03-28T00:00:00New
2022-03-29T00:00:00 |
2022-03-30Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/5/date |
Old
2022-03-22T00:00:00New
2022-03-28T00:00:00 |
2022-03-23Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/5 |
|
2022-03-18Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2 |
|
2022-03-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-704748_EN.html
|
2022-03-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/date |
Old
2022-03-01T00:00:00New
2022-03-03T00:00:00 |
2022-03-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3 |
|
2022-02-22Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-702934_EN.html
|
2022-02-18Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/date |
Old
2022-02-14T00:00:00New
2022-02-17T00:00:00 |
2022-02-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2 |
|
2022-01-25Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2022-01-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
2021-11-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2021-09-22Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| events/1 |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2021-09-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
2021-09-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| commission |
|
2021-07-30Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2021-07-20Show (1) Changes
| committees/1/opinion |
False
|