8 Amendments of Bas EICKHOUT related to 2020/2167(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
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 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets that in reply to Parliament's 2019 discharge report, the Agency does not show willingness to withdraw its demand to recover the legal fees in the General Court case T-31/18; reiterates its call on the Agency to withdraw its demand and to refrain from seeking to recover the costs of external lawyers from applicants in court cases based on access to information requests in the future so as to support respect for the fundamental right to access to documents by citizens and civil society;
Amendment 18 #
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 immigwith regret the shortcomings detected with respect to the Agency’s primary activities as listed by the Court, which are: situation monitoring, risk analysis, vulnerability assessment, joint operations and cross-rapid border crime is not sufficiently effectiveinterventions, return operations and Frontex's training 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 ; deeply regrets the lack of needs and impact assessments prior to the exponential increase in the Agency’s resources; urges the Agency to diligently and timely resolve outstanding issues in order to properly exercise the Agency’s mandate; notes that an analysis of respect for fundamental rights by the Agency was not included in the scope of the Court’s special report; asks the Court to carry out such a specific audit; _________________ 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 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Notes with concern the Court’s conclusion that the Agency’s operational reporting fails to inform decision-makers adequately as it lacks information on actual cost and performance;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes with concern the Court’s conclusion that although a functional information exchange framework is in place to support the fight against illegalmanagement of irregular 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; reiterates the discharge authority’s call expressed in previous discharge report on the Agency to improve monitoring and reporting regarding the situation and incidents on the Union’s borders, also in the context of potential human rights violations;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the Commission and the Agency accepted or partially accepted, all recommendations of the Court and calls on the budgetary authority to look into the possibility to put a part of the Agency’s future budget appropriations in a reserve that can be made available when milestones in the implementation of the Court’s recommendations are met;
Amendment 45 #
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; with concern its general conclusions that the Agency generally disregarded reports of fundamental rights violations at the border in a number of Member States and found evidence in support of allegations of fundamental rights violations in Member States with which it had a joint operation, but failed to adequately respond and as a result did not prevent these violations, nor reduced the risk of future fundamental rights violations; calls on the Agency to provide a detailed report to Parliament with its plans to implement the recommendations made by the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group and its progress made;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that the Agency’s fundamental rights officer took office on 1 June 2021; notacknowledges 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 statementexpresses its concern that of those 20 fundamental right monitors, five have been appointed at AD level and fifteen at AST level; highlights that it was required of the Agency to engage all 40 fundamental rights monitors at an AD level, in order to ensure acquisition of best set of skills and ensure proper deployment to operations; takes note of the strong disapproval by the FSWG of the unnecessary delay in the recruitment of the fundamental rights monitors caused by the Executive Director, 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 without further and undue delay; 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;