Activities of József NAGY related to 2014/2215(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Special report of the European Ombudsman in own-initiative inquiry concerning Frontex (debate) HU
Special report of the European Ombudsman in own-initiative inquiry concerning Frontex (A8-0343/2015 - Roberta Metsola, Ska Keller) HU
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Special Report of the European Ombudsman in own-initiative inquiry OI/5/2012/BEH-MHZ concerning Frontex PDF (183 KB) DOC (131 KB)
Amendments (28)
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the use of different uniforms alongside the Frontex emblem during the Frontex operations could makes it difficult for individuals to identify under whose authority an officer falls and, ultimately, where to file a complaint - whether with Frontex or directly with the Member State concerned;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas under Article 3(1a) of the Frontex regulation the Agency does not possess executive powers in the Member States and has no authority to sanction Member States or their officials; whereas the principle of subsidiarity should be respected within a request to FRONTEX to set up a Follow-up mechanism for complaints within the Member States' responsibility;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas Frontex has already established an incident reporting system which involves the Frontex operations teamdivision, the Frontex legal teamunit and the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, with the ultimate decision being taken by the Frontex Executive Director; whereas this system only involves internal complaints received from Frontex staff and guest officers, and consequently does not cater for direct complaints by individuals who claim a breach of their fundamental rights;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas individual complaints mechanisms already exist at European level within the structures of the European Investment Bank, the European Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Network of Ombudsmen; whereas it is noted that Frontex is an operational agency which differs in nature to the abovementioned bodies;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 a (new)
Subheading 1 a (new)
1. Acknowledges and appreciates FRONTEX' extraordinary support of the Member States at the EU's external borders in coordinating the mass influx of migrants during the current migration crisis; welcomes the engagement of FRONTEX to further support the Member States by contributing to the newly installed hotspots and by better coordinating return decisions;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Special Report of the European Ombudsman in the framework of the own-initiative inquiry concerning Frontex; supports Frontex’'s efforts in taking on board 12 of the Ombudsman’s recommendations's 13 recommendations and notes that Frontex did not categorically refuse to implement the recommendation on the complaints mechanism; acknowledges Frontex’'s current fundamental rights safeguards in the form of, but not limited to, the setting- up of an incident reporting system as well as devising codes of conduct, creating a Consultative Forum on fundamental rights and establishing a Fundamental Rights Office;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. SupportNotes the recommendation by the European Ombudsman that Frontex should deal with individual, non-anonymous complaints regarding infringements of fundamental rights in in the course of its operations and should provide adequate administrative support for that purpose; calls on Frontex to set up an appropriathe complaints mechanism;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Underlines that an individual non- anonymous complaint should require, as a formal prerequisite, that the person who intends to issue the complaint is registered in the EURODAC system according to Regulation (EU) No 603/2013.
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that in view of the ever- growing humanitarian and legal challenges at the EU’'s external borders, Frontex is in need of might require a mechanism that is capable of processing individual, non-anonymous complaints about alleged breaches of fundamental rights occurring in the course of its operations, thus becoming a first-instance body for complaints;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the setting-up of a mechanism for individual complaints would provide individuals with an opportunity to exercise their right to an more effective remedy; suggests that the introduction of such a complaints mechanism would increase transparency, since Frontex and the EU institutions would be more aware of possible violations of fundamental rights that wcould otherwise remain undetected, unreported and unresolved;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. StressNotes that under the Frontex regulation there arppears to be no legal obstacles to the introduction of an individual complaints mechanism; notes that the lack of such a mechanism is non-would be compliant with the principle of good administration and undermineswould add to the effective implementation of the Agency’'s fundamental rights strategy; believes that the capacity of Frontex to deal with possible violations of fundamental rights should be strengthened in the context of expanding the Agency’'s role under EU law, in particular its participation in Migration Management Support Teams working in ‘'hotspot’' areas;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the coordinating role of Frontex should not limit its responsibility under international and EU law; rRecalls that all Union agencies are bound by the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Takes the view there is a legitimate expectation on the part of all to believe that the actions of those involved in Frontex operations are attributable to Frontex and more generally to the EU; stresses that the complex legal relations and the distinct yet shared responsibilities between Frontex and the Member States should not undermine the safeguarding of fundamental rights; notes that being a central point for individual complaints does not make Frontex responsible for every complaint received; stresses that under Article 3(1a) of the Frontex regulation the Agency does not possess executive powers in the Member States and has no authority to sanction Member States and their officials; believes that due consideration should therefore be given to the competences of Frontex and those of the EU Member States;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. StressNotes the need for an official central structure within Frontex for the processing of individual complaints; notes that such a mechanism can only be realised under the condition that Frontex is provided with the necessary staff and budgetary resources; recommends that the office of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer should play a crucial role in handling complaints; considers that, in particular, the office should check the admissibility of complaints, filter them, pass them on to the authorities responsible, and follow up on them thoroughly; recalls that Frontex can only cooperate with Member States on the follow-up of complaints falling under the Member States' authority, but does not have executive powers in the Member States and no authority to sanction Member States and their officials;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that both persons who feel harmed by border guards wearing the Frontex emblem, especially the most vulnerable people, such as minors and pregnant women, and third parties acting in the interest of such persons should have the right to submit a complaint; urges Frontex to guarantee full confidentiality and not to disclose the identity of the complainant to third parties without his or her agreement;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges that safeguards are needed to prevent misuse of the complaints mechanism; recommends, therefore, that anonymous complaints should not be accepted; suggests further that only complaintsncrete and founded complaints which are based on a direct violation of concrete of the fundamental rights violationas protected by the EU Charter of fundamental rights should be admitted; considers that this should not prevent Frontex from taking account of other information sources on alleged fundamental rights violations, including general reports, beyond the complaints procedure; emphasises the need for clear criteria for the admissibility of complaints; recommends the provision of a standardised form for complaints requiring detailed information such as date and place of the incident, since this would facilitate decisions on admissibility;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Recalls that the identity of most complainants will be difficult to check upon and even to verify it as high percentage of people arrive to the EU with no documents, Urges to develop a system of verifying the identity of complainants while at the same time ensuring the protection of their personal data, that could be shared with any authorities only in cases of safeguard against and prevent threats on public security, public safety, public order and public health.
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Acknowledges that potential complaints may in manycertain cases refer to the conduct of guest officers who fall under the particular authority of a Member State but wear the Frontex emblem;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recommends that the office of the Fundamental Rights Officer transfers a complaint against a guest officer via a well-defined referral system to the competent national authority; considers it cruciauseful to involve national ombudsmen or any other relevant bodies competent for fundamental rights that have the responsibility to investigate national authorities and officials, whereas the Fundamental Rights Officer does not have the right to do so;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that the Fundamental Rights Officer should, in close cooperation with the relevant Frontex operational team, contribute to investigations by national authorities by providing further information on the incident if necessaryfound to be necessary by the responsible Member State;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that the Fundamental Rights Officer shcould, in relevant cases and in close cooperation with the relevant Frontex operational teamdivision, contribute to investigations by national authorities by providing further information on the incident if necessary;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that Frontex should closely follow up on complaints by formally requesting feedback from the respective Member State and, if necessary, by sending a letter of warning recalling the possible action which Frontex can take if no follow up to the letter concerned is received; rRecalls that Frontex has the right to receive information on fundamental rights violations by guest officers in the context of its obligation to monitor respect for fundamental rights in all of its activities;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recommends that a justificationFrontex should be provided to the complainant should no follow-up procedure be initiated by Frontexwith the contact details of the responsible national authority;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that the Frontex Disciplinary Procedure may also apply to seconded guest officers and seconded national experts if the relevant Member State agreesfinds it to be the best solution; recalls that Frontex may request the Member State to immediately remove the guest officer or seconded national expert concerned from the Frontex activity if the Member State does not allow the disciplinary procedure to take place, and, if necessary, to remove the person from the pool of guest officers;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that the possibilityno prejudice in terms of withdrawing financial support from the Member States for joint operations as well as the suspension and ultimately the termination of an operation in case of serious and persistent fundamental rights violations should be explored, without prejudiceultimately the termination of an operation should come by this mechanism to the overall aim of the Frontex mission whereby the saving of lives is envisaged;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Takes the view that an individual complaints mechanism can only be effective if potential complainants, as well as the officers taking part in Frontex operations, are made aware of the individuals’' right to complain through an effective information campaign; believes it should be possible for the number of potential inadmissible complaints to be limited substantially through such an information campaign and a well- structured admissibility check of the complaints;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Takes note that an individual complaints mechanism should be both efficient and cost-effective; calls on Frontex to provide the necessary resourcesthe Member States and the European Commission to provide Frontex with the necessary additional resources to be allocated to the Fundamental Rights Office for handling the complaints received;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes the readiness of the European Ombudsman, the members of the European Network of Ombudsmen with competence on fundamental rights and the Frontex Consultative Forum to support Frontex in setting up and implementing an individual complaints mechanism; calls on Frontex to follow where appropriate the good practice of other European bodies, such as the European Investment Bank, in close cooperation with the European Ombudsman while keeping in mind that Frontex is an operational agency which differs in nature to the abovementioned bodies;