14 Amendments of Monica MACOVEI related to 2012/2185(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Takes note that the Agency's final budget amounted EUR 20 180 000 for the financial year 2011 with an Union contribution representing EUR 19 978 200;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Acknowledges that in 2011 the Agency committed 100 % of the appropriations received; observes however that in terms of paid appropriations the Agency's execution rate stands at 75% under Title 2 and at only 27% under Title 3; calls on the Agency to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payment in the case of administrative and operational expenditure;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Congratulates the Agency for the factTakes note that the Court of Auditors did not make any critical remarks in its report;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Notes with concern that the European Ombudsman has launched a investigation on 6 July 20111 as regards harassment following of the complaint a staff member of the Agency; underlines that already in 2009 the European Data Protection Supervisor mentioned on the case of another Agency's staff member that it has strong elements of harassment; __________________ 1 ref. 0917/2011/(PMC)EIS
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Is also deeply concerned by another case of harassment against a staff member responsible of overseeing all matters relating to public procurement; notes that the case is allegedly related to the backdating of a contract to disguise the illegality of the carry-over of appropriations to which the staff member opposed; observes that after an internal procedure the Director concluded that there was no evidence of harassment by decision of 16 October 2009; emphasizes the European Union Civil Service Tribunal's judgment of 18 September 2012 which annuls the decision of 16 October 2009 of the Agency due to the lack of impartiality on the part of the investigator and his refusal to guarantee the anonymity of the witnesses, and orders the Agency to pay legal fees and damages to the victim; is of the opinion that the amount for damages should be recovered from the Director who confirmed the investigator's conclusions which were annulled by the Tribunal; calls moreover on the Director to identify the individuals responsible; if no action is taken this would lead to reputational risks for the Agency and would diminish trust in the Agency; urges the Agency to keep the discharge authority informed on this matter;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Has been informed that OLAF carried out a visit to the premises of the Agency in December 2012; expects to receive information on ongoing administrative investigations related to the Agency;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Acknowledges that in 2011 the Agency committed 100 % of the appropriations received; observes however that in terms of paid appropriations the Agency's execution rate stands at 75% under Title II (Administrative expenditure) and at only 27% under Title III (Operational expenditure); calls on the Agency to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payment in the case of administrative and operational expenditure;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that in 2012, there were three cases dealt by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding whistleblowing, harassment and labour disputes in the Agency, and that on 6 July 2011, the Ombudsman opened Case 0917/2011/ (PMC) EIS, which is based on allegations regardingexpressed by one of the whistleblowers;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that in one of the cases referred to in paragraph 4, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal decided in favour of the applicant in Case F-58/10 (judgement of 18 September 2012 in Case F-58/10, Timo Allgeier v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights which) and annulled the Agency's decision of 16 October 2009 and ordered inot to bring disciplinary proceedings against two pay legal fees and damages to Mr Allgeier), while in case F-112/10 (Cornelia Trentea v European Agency for Fundamental Rights) the Tribunal decided in favour of the Agency; in case F-38/12 (BP v European Agency for Fundamental Rights)members of staff for alleged psychological harassment due to the lack of impartiality on the part of the investigator and his refusal to guarantee the anonymity of the witnesses and ordered it to pay damages to the applicant and the costs; notes that in case F-112/10 the Tribunal decided in favour of the Agency but the applicant brought an appeal before the General Court against the judgment while in case F-38/12 judgement is pending;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Given the reputational risks at stake, urges the Agency to inform the discharge authority in details on the rules of procedure, legal framework and hearing modalities established for the launch and conduction of internal investigations and the protection of witnesses' anonymity in the occurrence of such internal investigations; (Justification: the explanations provided by the Executive Director of the Agency on this particular issue at the hearing on the 2011 discharge of the decentralised agencies organised by the Budgetary Control Committee on 24 January 2013 were not informative enough and require further details)
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Acknowledges that accordingevery two years the Agency, it takes the issue of staff well- being and satisfaction launches an anonymous well- being survey among staff; notes in particular from the 2012 survery seriously and, every two years, launches an anonymous well-being survey among staff; acknowledges, moreover, that it hasthat concerns have been raised regarding the handling of in-house conflicts and the attention paid to the well-being of the staff; takes note that the Agency introduced an anti-harassment policy and a network of confidential counsellors in order to minimise situations of conflict in the workplace and to address such allegationsthem in a comprehensive manner;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that on 12 and 14 December 2012, the Agency presented to its Executive Board and to its Management Board the draft rules on whistleblowing; notes that the decision was taken to adopt those rules formally after consultation with the Commission services; notes that in the meantime, the Agency follows the principles of the Commission guidelines; apply and calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority when the rules will be adopted and implemented;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)
Subheading 3 a (new)
Transparency
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)