9 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2020/2167(DEC)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the finding of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) regarding financing agreements that reimbursements were still based on actual costs instead of on unit costs, and the associated issues identified with supporting evidence; recalls that this issue was also identified in the discharge for 2018; notes from the Agency’s follow- up report that the Agency has piloted the unit cost approach for heavy equipment and an analysis was made on the use of unit costs for the deployment of human resources and light technical equipment; notes that the pilot projects for heavy equipment revealed that the unit cost approach would increase the total costs, as the financial consequences of unpredictable events such as weather conditions, repairs and days needed for transfer of the asset, that are now reimbursable on the basis of presented evidence, would need to be factored into the unit cost; notes that the Agency concluded that moving to unit-based reimbursement is not feasible due to lack of interest from Member States; insists that unnecessary bureaucratic burden needs to be avoided; calls on the Court theo examine the unit cost approach piloted by the Agency, particularly with a view to cooperation required by Member States, and inform the discharge authority if this approach is indeed not suited for heavy equipment;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the Court’s Special Report 08/2021 entitled ‘Frontex’s support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’; notes the Court’s conclusion that the Agency’s support to Member States and Schengen associated countries in fighting against illegal immigration and cross-border crime is not sufficiently effective and that the Agency has not fully implemented its mandate under Regulation (EU) 2016/16243 ; notes further that the Court highlighted risks related to the Agency’s mandate under Regulation (EU) 2019/18964 ; reminds that the Agency’s mandates from 2016 and 2019 partially overlap, which contributed to the risks to the implementation of the mandate identified by the Court; _________________ 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC (OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1). 4Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1).
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Notes that only two years after the previous amendment came into force, the Commission put forward a proposal for a new regulation for the Agency in absence of an impact assessment for the new legislation; calls on the Commission and the Agency to quickly find an adequate solution to ensure a proper and timely implementation of the Agency's new mandate, urges the Commission and the Court of Auditors to regularly assess Agency’s and the Member States’ performance to identify areas for improvement, including in the respective legal bases for Agency’s activities, and also in the light of results and impacts achieved;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the Court’s conclusion that although a functional information exchange framework is in place to support the fight against illegal immigration, it did not function well enough to provide accurate, complete and up-to-date situational awareness of the Union’s external borders; notes that the Agency dispatches timely and relevant migration information about the situation at the external borders and provides information about specific events; notes, however, some drawbacks as far as external border control is concerned, such as the lack of information, technical standards for border control equipment, a common catalogue for cross-border crime reporting, and near- real-time information about the situation at the Union’s air borders, and delays in updating the common integrated risk analysis model; underlines that the latter observation cannot be solely attributed to the Agency, but needs to be remedied jointly with Member States and the Commission;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that Frontex, as regards the common integrated risk assessment model, cannot assess risks and monitor the situation sufficiently because of differences in reporting across Member States in terms of frequency, format, data or definition of cases; further notes that Member States inconsistently report on cross-border crime; regrets that the needed exchange between the Agency and the Member States to fight against illegal migration and cross-border crime is hampered; concludes that the Agency cannot sufficiently fulfil its mandate because of missing data; calls on the Commission to strengthen the cooperation between the Member States and the Agency by clear legal guidance;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Recalls that during a meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 1 September 2021 the Deputy Director General of DG HOME stated that all enquiries have come to an end and that none have led to conclusions that there were traces of budgetary or financial mismanagement or fundamental rights violations or that the Agency had refused to comply with obligations under its regulation;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Notes that the Agency has an obligation to ensure proactive transparency as stated in Article 114(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896; notes that Article 114(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 also provides that such transparency has its limits as it shall be ensured without revealing operational information which, if made public, would jeopardise achievement of the objectives of operations; takes note that the Agency cannot disclose personal data in violation of the legal base for processing of personal data, as provided for by Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; calls on the Commission to ensure binding rules for the protection of information and data;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls the establishment of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group by Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; notes that the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group published its report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations on 14 July 2021; notes that the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group found no proof of the Agency’s involvement in alleged illegal pushbacks; notes that the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group identified gaps in the framework of cooperation with Member States, which may hamper the fulfilment of Frontex’s fundamental rights obligations, and highlighted the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission, also outside their role in the Management Board; emphasises that the Agency's staff needs legal clarity, particularly during high-risk missions at sea and that the Commission and the Member States need to ensure legal standards and clarity on the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 regarding various situations during missions;