15 Amendments of Younous OMARJEE related to 2020/2167(DEC)
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/Refuses to grant the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2019;
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019 / Points out that a proposal to close the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019 must be submitted at a subsequent part-session;
Amendment 13 #
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; calls on the Court the examine the unit cost approach piloted by the Agency and inform the discharge authority if this approach is indeed not suited for heavy equipment; calls again on the Agency to cease all remaining reimbursements for any cost claims not supported by invoices;
Amendment 25 #
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; regrets that adequate information exchange framework has not yet been established for cross-border crime, affecting the capacity of the Agency and Member States to respond quickly to any threats detected; 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;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Highlights that the outcome of the OLAF investigation is a crucial element without which the decision to grant discharge or not cannot be taken;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls the great concerns of Parliament on the meetings conducted in 2018 and 2019 by the Agency with representatives of industries relevant for the Agency’s work, with a majority of representatives not listed in the Union transparency register; raises strong concerns regarding the fact that the Executive Director lied to the Parliament when he stated that the Agency had met exclusively with lobbyists listed in the EU Transparency Register 2019; highlights that a report by Corporate Europe Observatory disclosed that in 2018 and 2019, 72% (91 out of a total of 125) of all lobbyists that the Agency met were not registered in the EU Transparency Register1a; points to Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 that requires the Agency to ensure transparency as regards lobbying by means of a transparency register and by disclosing all meetings with third-party stakeholders; notes the decision of the Agency’s executive director on the transparency register of the Agency of 5 May 2021; but regrets the significant delay by the Agency in adopting a transparency register; _________________ 1a https://corporateeurope.org/en/lobbying- fortress-europe
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls the establishment of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) 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 investiSWG published its report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex “regarding alleged violations of fundamental rights in which the Agency was involved, was aware of and/or did not act, internal management, procedures for reporting, and the handling of complaints”1a on 14 July 2021; notes that the 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”2a; recalls that the FSWG concluded that the Agency had “evidence in support of allegations 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; f 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” and that “as a result, Frontex did not prevent these violations, nor reduced the risk of future fundamental rights violations”3a; notes that while conducting its investigations, the working group discovered that recommendations and advice provided by the former Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) over a four-year period was ignored by the Executive director4a, notably regarding Frontex operations in Hungary; _________________ 1aFrontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG), Draft mandate, as approved by LIBE on 29.01.2021; also in the “Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 1. Constitution of the FSWG and reason for inquiry 2a“Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 2C. General conclusions ; 3a“Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 2C. General conclusions 4afrom “Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 3D. Role of the Executive Director, Recommendations:“-The FSWG deeply regrets the failure of the Executive Director to respond or follow up to the many expressions of concerns, recommendations, opinions or observations submitted by the FRO over the course of four years.
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Points out that the Executive Director lied at different occasions to MEPs within the framework of the investigation of the FSWG, including by concealing information about individual pushbacks he had full knowledge of; notes that MEPs found proof of the Executive Director recategorising a Serious Incident Report (SIR) to category 2 and personally instructing Agency's Fundamental Rights Officer to “remove all information gathered” for this same SIR concerning a push back incident recorded by a FRONTEX aerial asset on 18-19 April 2020; deplores that “the Executive Director continues to maintain that he is not aware of any information that fundamental rights have been or are being violated, and even denies that he had received reports from actors that have confirmed they shared their findings with the Agency”;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Urges the Agency to ensure that it complies with all fundamental rights obligations enshrined in the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 in its implementation of integrated border management, both in terms of policy and operational activities; calls on the Agency to implement effectively the recommendations from the report of the FSWG and the previous 2019 discharge resolution of the Parliament and inform on a regular basis the Parliament about the implementation of its recommendations and about ongoing operations, including serious incidents concerning fundamental rights violations at the external borders and how this was addressed by the Agency;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 e (new)
Paragraph 13 e (new)
13 e. Notes that the FSWG expressed “concern that the Executive Director has delayed the recruitment of the three Deputy Executive Directors, and has refrained from delegating independent powers to them” and that “in combination with the proposal of the Executive Director to expand the Cabinet of the Executive Management of Frontex to 63 staff members, the FSWG is strongly concerned about insufficient checks and balances within the Agency”[8]; [8] “Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 3D. Role of the Executive Director
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes thatRegrets the delay in appointing the Agency’s fundamental rights officer, who took office only on 1 June 2021; notes the statements of the Agency’s executive director that the recruitment of a first batch of 20 fundamental rights monitors is completed, with the fundamental rights monitors starting their training from 1 June 2021, and that the appointment of a second batch of 20 fundamental rights monitors is ongoing; further notes the statement that of those 20 fundamental right monitors, five have been appointed at AD level and fifteen at AST level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors and insists that the Agency swiftly appoints the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors; notes the Agency’s statement that those remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors will be recruited from an established AD 7 reserve list, once additional AD7 posts have been allocated to the Agency; strongly disapproves the delay in recruiting the 40 fundamental rights monitors reminding the Agency’s obligation under Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit 40 fundamental right monitors by 5 December 2020; further notes the statement that of those 20 fundamental right monitors, five have been appointed at AD level and fifteen at AST level; recalls that the Parliament highlighted in the FSWG report that “this lower ranking may affect the monitor’s authority and autonomy, access to classified and sensitive information, and therefore their effectiveness”1a; recalls the former calls of the Parliament and the Commission that the 40 fundamental rights monitors should have been appointed at AD level; reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 provides for the recruitment of at least 40 fundamental rights monitors and insists that the Agency swiftly appoints the remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors; recalls the call of the Parliament’s FSWG for “the immediate provision of a clear and short timeline for the employment and deployment of the remaining fundamental rights monitors at AD-level, complemented with supporting personnel at AST-level”1b; regrets the Agency’s statement that those remaining 20 fundamental rights monitors will be recruited from an established AD 7 reserve list, once additional AD7 posts have been allocated to the Agency since the Commission had highlighted there were sufficient AD posts allocated to the Agency; _________________ 1a“Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 3C. Role of the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum 1b“Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations”, 3C. Role of the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum, Recommendations
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)