14 Amendments of Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ related to 2022/2134(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recognises that agencies provide common centres of expertise and networking and are indispensable for the implementation of EU policies; reminds that Union agencies use significant resources and their number has increased over the years; notes that all agencies should effectively perform their mandates;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that for the 2021 financial year, the Court issued unqualified (“clean”) audit opinions on the accounts of all 44 agencies; Stresses that the Court issued three ‘emphasis on the matter’ paragraphs ion relation to Frontex; is concerned about weaknesses in recruitment at Frontex related to the evaluation process; reiterates its deep concern about the findings of the OLAF reportfour agencies, including on Frontex accounts; notes that in this regard no impact has been identified on the operating revenue of the statement of financial performance of the agency for 2021; notes that the Court reported weaknesses related to various aspects of recruitment procedures, including evaluation processes and vacancy notices for nine agencies, including three JHA agencies; reaffirms that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the JHA Agencies is conditional on the Agencies’ accountability and transparency, fundamental rights compliance, and commitment to comply with Union law; recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge to Frontex in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2021 until Frontex fully complies with such requirements and there are no further instances of fundamental rights violationcompliance with the relevant legal and regulatory framework requirements and use in accordance with the principle of sound financial management, i.e., the principles of ‘economy’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the EDPS requested to the Court of Justice of the European Union to annul two provisions of the revisamended Europol Regulation, as they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of Europol’s budget commends the action taken by Member States, operational cooperation partners and Europol, as no request was made to apply Article 74a and all contributions from before the financial year 2021 until the Court of Justice of the European Union delivers its judgemententry into force of the amended Europol Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the Court found that the payments underlying the accounts were legal and regular for all agencies except for eu-LISA, for which a qualified opinion was issued because of six payments that were considered not compliant to the provisions of framework contracts, amounting in total to EUR 18.11 million in 2021, representing 6,2 % of the total payment appropriations available in 2021; welcomes that eu-LISA complied with its duty to record the payment actually affected by potential error/irregularity in the internal control system of eu-LISA through a non- compliance report and an exception report;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses deep concern that public procurement weaknesses are increasing andNotes that weaknesses in public procurement procedures remain the largestmain source of irregular payments and that the Court reported contracts affected by various sorts of public procurement shortcomings, in relation to contracts signed by Frontex, eu-LISA, CEPOL and EASOcluding for payments made in the 2021 financial year, stemming from irregular procurement procedures reported in previous years for 22 agencies including CEPOL, eu-LISA, Eurojust, EASO and Frontex;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concern the Court’s findings on weaknesses in management and control systems in relation to 16 agencies including Frontex, Europol, CEPOL and EPPO;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that weaknesses in various aspects of budgetary management can result in high carry-overs or late payments, which can, in some cases, be justified by the multi-annual nature of operations or circumstances outside the Agency’s control, such as delays of the Member States in introducing their claims for grants; is concerned that the Court found such shortcomings at Frontex, eu-LISA, EPPO, and FRA;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. ApplaudWelcomes that the Court has decided to examine potential ‘revolving door’ situations in its audit and asks that this topic, as well as the associated risk of conflict of interests, is also included in future annual report be followed up in future annual reports; recognizes that Agencies mostly comply with their legal obligations; sShares the opinion by the Court that Agencies are particularly prone to the risk of ‘revolving door’ situations; expresses deep concern due to their governance model, which includes boards; acknowledges that the EU legal framework applicable to managing ‘revolving door’ risks lacks clear requirements on compliance and monitoring, and that it do not apply to members of the agencies’ boardbasis is, however, currently weak; notes that the Agencies have little control over the members of Management boards as member states appoint them; Recognizes the difficulty for Agencies and their Management Boards to implement effective measures in the absence of clear legal provisions on how to prevent and manage the issues of conflict of interest and revolving doors;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. CWelcomes that Europol and FRA have implemented their own internal rules for board members; calls on the Commission to propose reasonable changes to prevent any risk of ‘revolving door’ and conflict of interest; in members of agencies’ boards to which current rules do not apply;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. CWelcomes that for the 139 observations that had not been addressed at the end of 2020, corrective action had been completed in 67 cases and was ongoing in 39 cases in 2021; calls on the agencies to ensure follow-up on current and previous year’s audit observations by the Court;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Requestminds that cooperation among JHA agencies ismust be fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls onrequests all JHA agencies to take measures to ensure full compliance with financial regulations, EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection and sound budgetary management standards;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on all JHA agencies to ensure a gendertake into consideration gender and geographically balanced distribution on all levels of staff and report to the discharge authority on implemented measures and progress; notes that agencies have no influence on the nomination of management board members;