18 Amendments of Saskia BRICMONT related to 2021/2146(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
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 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 201920 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; noteregrets that the budget of the Agency was increased from EUR 446 million to EUR 495 million (+ 11 %); takes note of the increase in the Agency's staff in 2020 from 749 to 1 234 (+ 64,8 %);
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deeply regrets that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, as Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made by the Agency in that respect; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions increases the risk of refusaltogether with the alleged fundamental rights violations and the fact that the OLAF report has not been made public yet, makes clear that the Agency does not meet the requirements to be granted the discharge for the financial year 2020; recalls that the Agency's budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €693 million in 2022, and that a significant increase of the Agency’s budget is still foreseen for 2023; further recalls that the Agency is the JHA Agency that receives by far a larger amount of EU budget; considers that it is a pre-condition that JHA Agencies, which receive EU budget to carry out their activities, fully comply with fundamental rights;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls of the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office has initiated an investigation on the Agency over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks; further recalls the unprecedented examination of human rights violations at Union borders; underlines that the outcome of the investigation was still pending by early December 2021; reminds that the Ombudsman conducted two own-initiative inquiries into the effectiveness and transparency of the complaints mechanism of the Agency and on the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations; reiterates the concern onrole and independence of the fundamental rights officer, as well as into the compliance by the Agency with its fundamental rights obligations and its ability to ensure accountability; recalls that the Ombudsman’s first inquiry was followed by nine suggestions for improvement to the Agency, including suggestions on how to make it easier for potential victims of fundamental rights violations to be aware of redress possibilities and to report incidents; notes the findings of the Court in its special report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex's support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’, but remains concerned that the work of the Agency beyond Union borders remains barely scrutinised; further recalls of the outcome of the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group and the conclusions of the 13 internal inquiries by its management board; welcomesregrets that the Agency’s report on the implementation of the conclusions of the extraordinary management board meeting of 6 October 2021 which reflects the 71 recommendations received from the aforementioned reports and audits is not published; notes that the Agency implemented 59 of those actions; calls on the Agency to take all necessary measures towards implementing all the remaining recommendations and to report to the discharge authority over the progress achieved;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Agency’s efforts following Parliament’s resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, namely: (1) the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer, who took office on 1 June 2021, and the appointment of the first 20 fundamental rights monitors; regrets the fact that 15 of those appointments were made at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 and that none of the monitors had been appointed back then; urges the Agency to swiftly recruit the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level; deeply regrets the delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors and recalls that this poses a serious risk; agrees with the Court opinion that this poses a serious risk to operations and reputation of the Agency; deeply deplores the fact that that despite repeated calls of Parliament and a significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the fundamental rights officer still lacks adequate human resources and is therefore clearly hampered to properations and reputation of the Agencyly conduct the tasks that he is entrusted with; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staff, in particular in relation to further developing and implementing the Agency’s strategy to monitor and ensure the protection of fundamental rights; welcomes the cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights towards completing the recruitment of the remainding fundamental rights monitors and preparing the legal and operational framework for their deployment on the ground; (2) the appointment of the three deputy executive directors in 2021; and (3) the update of the Standard Operating Procedure for Serious Incident Reporting in May 2021; reminds the Agency of the importance of adhering to the Staff Regulations;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the decision to partially granRegrets that access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, is only granted to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; considers that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and requests that the report is made publicly available without further delay; deeply regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented and the lack of accountability; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant the discharge to the Agency for the financial year 2020;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. CRecalls that the Agency is mandated to control borders while ensuring that border controls are conducted in accordance with the fundamental rights applicable in the Union, including those enshrined in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Regulation (EU) 2016/3991a and Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; calls on the Agency to swiftly adopt a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to suspend the Agency's operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77 23.3.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Is deeply concerned about the recent revelations by the media that consulted the OLAF report1a, according to which, Frontex was completely aware of illegal pushbacks by Greece and even supported and participated in financing them; considers totally unacceptable that the Agency has been trying to cover up this illegal and sometimes brutal practice and recalls that this situation makes the Agency a direct partner; urges the Commission to take serious responsibility and clear steps to ensure that this situation does not happen again and to hold EU Agencies accountable for human rights violations; _________________ 1a https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/todesfalle- eu-grenze-die-praxis-der-gewaltsamen- pushbacks-a-2a7c82b5-2efe-4b2f-84b5- 3404c82c8124; https://www.alestiklal.net/en/view/14539/t his-is-how-frontex-covered-up-illegal- migrant-pushbacks-by-greek-authorities
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Acknowledges that an analysis of respect for fundamental rights by the Agency was not included in the scope of the Court’s special report 08/2021 since that would require a specific audit in view of the complexity of the matterentitled ‘Frontex' support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; asks the Court to carry out such a specific audit about the Agency’s activities regarding the futurerespect for and the protection of fundamental rights in future reports; calls the Agency to swiftly implement recommendation 5 of the Court’s special report, respecting the indicated timeline set out therein.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the appointment of the interim executive director on 1 July 2022; recalls the repeated criticism from the Parliament concerning the Agency’s failure to protect the fundamental rights of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly among numerous reports and journalistic investigations of its complicity in illegal pushbacks, which led to the resignation of the former executive director; reaffirms that this situation should not happen again; strongly requests monitoring mechanisms to be put in place and to keep the Parliament informed about the measures applied to ensure non-repetition of fundamental rights’ violations;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Is deeply concerned about the revelations of the ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis’ (PeDRA) according to which, the Programme allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers, including genetic data, religious beliefs and sexual orientation, to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; expresses further concern that the expanded surveillance programme (PeDRA) not only targets non-suspects, but it loosens restrictions concerning the exchange of personal data between Frontex and Europol1a; deeply regrets the lack of impact assessments and evaluation before reform of the mandates of the Agency was proposed by the Commission; calls on the suspension of this program until further scrutiny; _________________ 1a https://balkaninsight.com/2022/07/07/eus- frontex-tripped-in-plan-for-intrusive- surveillance-of-migrants/
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive director of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings and that there is proper follow-up, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; expecturges decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes with concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expecturges a detailed strategy to tackle that issue to be implemented before the end of 2022; reminds the Agency of the importance of adhering to the Staff Regulations;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
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 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
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
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the management board and Commission to recruit a new executive director as soon as possible who truly commits with fundamental rights compliance; further calls on the management board and the Commission to ensure that the recruitment procedure is fully transparent and takes into full account the EP indications.