16 Amendments of Saskia BRICMONT related to 2022/2124(DEC)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that Frontex is by large the Agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years; recalls that the Agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021, and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period; considers that such increase is not justified by substantive evidence clearly demonstrating its necessity from an effectiveness and efficiency perspective;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes the Court's emphasis on matters related to the reliability of the accounts and concerning the incorrect calculation of contributions from non-EU Schengen area countries, which caused an overstatement of the EU contribution to the Frontex budget of EUR 2,6 million and an understatement of contributions by the non-Schengen area countries;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Notes the Court’s emphasis on the matter for reliability of the accounts regarding the carry-over to 2021 of a budgetary commitment dated 21 December 2020 “Preparatory measures for 2021 deployments SC Cat 1 and 2” without the backing of a legal commitment before the end of 2020; notes that the total payments in 2021 were EUR 18 375 458 and that Frontex addressed this non-compliance by means of subsequent legal commitments throughout 2021;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Notes the Court’s emphasis on the matter for reliability of the accounts and for the legality and regularity of payments concerning certification of the accounts, where the Accounting Officer declares a lack of necessary information for the validation of a new system laid down by the authorising officer and used for supplying accounting information;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Notes the Court’ observations on management and control systems in the Agency; deplores that the contract concluded end of December 2021 with a single contractor for the provision of travel services including the deployment of the standing corps had to be suspended in February 2022 and terminated in May 2022 for incorrect performance of the contract; notes the Court’s observation that the technical, professional and financial capacity requirements could have been set higher by the Agency to avoid exposure to such a risk;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Notes the ongoing actions of the Agency in response to the Court’s observations from previous years, including the corrective steps in addressing the risk of double funding from the Internal Security Fund; calls on the Agency to continue undertaking corrective actions, including the adoption and implementation of a sensitive post policy in line with its own internal control standards, and addressing the high level of carry-overs; to inform the discharge authority about the progress made on those matters;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Takes note of the amendment of the standard operating procedure on the Serious Incident Report (SIR) mechanism to define the role of the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) in this process; stresses that every operational plan should include a transparent reporting mechanism ensuring that every incident in the operational area is reported and properly followed up; stresses that this reporting mechanism should apply regardless of the way these assets are being financed , in order to ensure that Frontex, and in particular the FRO, can monitor the whole operational area and investigate all SIRs or other indications of non-compliance;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Stresses that Frontex direct and indirect involvement in border management and border surveillance activities must go hand in hand with preventing and combating fundamental rights violations, and with securing compliance with the principle of non- refoulement, in accordance with the Union acquis; recalls Frontex legal obligation under article 46 of the Frontex Regulation to suspend operations when the Agency cannot operate in line with its fundamental rights obligations;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Recalls that the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG), in its report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations already raised concerns, such as 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", 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’ 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’ 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 took 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 “highlights the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission, outside their role in the Management Board as well";
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the position that the Management Board should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of fundamental rights violations; reiterates the importance to implement the standard operating procedures to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or terminate, or not launch Frontex activities in cases where such risks arise; urges the Management Board to strengthen internal oversight structures as well as cooperation and communication with competent administrative and judicial authorities and independent civil society actors in host Member States;
Amendment 35 #
5 a. Notes the shared responsibilities that the Agency and the Member States have in the fulfilment of fundamental rights obligations; urges the Agency and Member States to further develop structures of cooperation, information- sharing and exchange of best practices;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations into Frontex, and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented and the lack of accountability; considers that the findings of the OLAFsuch report are a matter of public interest and should be made public without further delayrequests OLAF to promptly make any related finding in its upcoming reports on Frontex publicly available; underlines that the decision not to make the OLAF report on Frontex' activities promptly available to all Member of Parliament contradicted the need for democratic scrutiny over the agency’s misbehaviours and responsibilities for human rights violations;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Expresses its deepest concern that Frontex Executive Director Ad Interim and one of the candidates for the position of Frontex Executive Director is a person of concern in an ongoing investigation by OLAF; notes that Frontex Management Board was informed about this information in November 2021 but decided not to inform the European Parliament; recalls European Parliament's formal role in the selection procedure for the new Executive Director; calls on the Management Board to diligently inform the European Parliament;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recalls that the Progress Lawyers Network (Front-LEX) and the Greek Helsinki Monitor have submitted a legal action against Frontex at the CJEU on behalf of two asylum seekers who had been victims of pushbacks operations during their attempts to seek protection in the EU; underlines that this is the first time that Frontex is being taken to the CJEU over human rights violations;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that Frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants, transparency, data protection, and alleged sexual harassment within the Agency led the European Parliament to refuse discharge of the Agency’s 2020 budget; reiterates its call upon the Agency to present a detailed roadmap on how it intends to fulfil the outstanding concerns, together with a clear and detailed timeframe for those actions; recalls the repeated criticism from Parliament concerning the Agency’s failure, under the former executive leadership, 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;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Reiterates its call for the Agency to complete corrective actions to address all outstanding concerns raised by the European Ombudsman, by the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group and by the Consultative Forum;