2022/2121(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (‘The Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annuals accounts of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material respects; recalls that, according to its statement of revenue and expenditure, the budget of the Agency increased in 2021 ~~from~~to EUR 1~~83 to 210~~78.3 million (+1~~4,75~~2,41%), while members of staff increased from 884 to 9579 (+10,745%) within the same period;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Regret~~Notes the reported weaknesses in management and control systems, namely two cases of potential conflict of interest situation in relation to a senior manager taking up a job elsewhere, when Europol did not issue its decision within the deadline and thus effectively authorised the person concerned to take up the new job without any restrictions and in contravention of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations;

Amendment 11 #

Caterina CHINNICI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the observation from the Court stressing that late payments were issued by the Agency in 33% of the cases in 2020 is still ongoing; expresses concern that, according to the Court, similar levels of delays were observed in previous years; shares the opinion by the Court that this recurrent weaknesses exposes Europol to reputational risks; welcomes the fact that Court's observations from 2018 and 2019 regarding contract management and ex- ante controls have been completed; requests the Agency to increase its efforts to address all the observations from the Court;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets~~Notes with concern that the observation from the Court stressing that late payments were issued by the Agency in 33% of the cases in 2020 is still ongoing; expresses concern that, according to the Court, similar levels of delays were observed in previous years; ~~shares the opinion by the Court~~underlines that ~~this~~such recurrent weaknesses exposes Europol to reputational risks; ~~requests~~welcomes the actions taken by Europol in addressing this situation and notes that in 2021 payment delays were reduced to 8%; calls on the Agency to ~~increas~~continue its efforts to address all the observations from the Court;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Notes that the observation from the Court stressing that late payments were issued by the Agency in 33% of the cases in 2020 is still ongoing; expresses concern that, according to the Court, similar levels of delays were observed in previous years; shares the opinion by the Court that this recurrent weaknesses exposes Europol to reputational risks; requests the Agency to increase its efforts to address all the observations from the Court; the Agency had paid late in 33% of the cases in 20203a , while in 2021, payment delays were reduced to 8%3b; highlights the opinion by the Court3c that the Agency should continue its efforts to address all the observations from the Court; _________________ 3a Source: ECA annual report for 2021, see page 271 3b ECA annual report for 2021, see page 271, information provided to the ECA by Europol (reduction to 8% in 2021). 3c ECA annual report for 2021, see page 271, information provided to the ECA by Europol (reduction to 8% in 2021). The ECA wants Europol to continue its efforts to keep payment delays at low levels.

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Notes that the observation from the Court stressing that late payments were issued by the Agency in 33% of the cases in 2020 is still ongoing; ~~expresses concern~~ notes that, according to the Court, similar levels of delays were observed in previous years; shares the opinion by the Court that this recurrent weaknesses exposes Europol to reputational risks; requests the Agency to increase its efforts to address all the observations from the Court;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that on 16 September 2022, the EDPS requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union annul two provisions of the revised Europol Regulation, namely Articles 74a and 74b, as they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; reminds that articles 74a and 74b have the effect of legalising retroactively Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no established link to criminal activity, which the EDPS found to be in breach of Europol’s Regulation; reiterates its utmost concerns regarding the impact on individuals’ fundamental rights of the facts revealed by the EDPS in the “big data challenge” inquiry, admonishment decision and order; deplores that the solution to the concerns raised by the EDPS has been to codify the continuity of Europol’s activities instead of proving the mechanisms to ensure that fundamental rights and data protection are fully respected; expresses deep regret that the decision which include Articles 74a and 74b in the new Europol’s Regulation has not been accompanied by enhanced safeguards for individuals and adequate accountability mechanisms for the Agency; recalls with concern the allegations that Europol contains at least 4 petabytes of personal data, which is equivalent to 3m CD-Roms or a fifth of the entire contents of the US Library of Congress; underlines the concerns raised by data protection advocates regarding the volume of information held on Europol’s systems, which according to them, amounts to mass surveillance and, therefore, similar practices compared to the US National Security Agency (NSA);

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that on 16 September 2022, the EDPS requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union annul two provisions of the ~~revis~~amended Europol Regulation, namely Articles 74a and 74b, asrguing that they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; ~~rem~~underlindes th~~at articles 74a and 74b ha~~e fact that Europol has no control over the ~~effect of legalising~~ legality of articles in the Regulation detailing its mandate and pretrogactive~~ly Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no established link to criminal~~s; highlights that this responsibility falls to the co-legislators and the Court, when certain provisions are challenged; takes further note that no request was made to apply the acrti~~vity, which the EDPS found to be in breach of~~cles in cause and that all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended Europol’s Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category (DSC);

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that on 16 September 2022, the EDPS requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union annul two provisions of the ~~revis~~amended Europol Regulation, namely Articles 74a and 74b, as they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; reminds that articles 74a and 74b have the effect of legalising retroactively Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no estab commends the action taken by Member States4b, operational cooperation partners and Europol, as no request was made to apply Article 74a and all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended Europol Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category (DSC)4a; _________________ 4a Current proceedings with the CJEU: The LIBE opinion cannot pre-empt the ruling of the CJEU of the EDPS motion and the official response of the Parliament to the CJEU as institution. 4b Europol reported to the EDPS in November 2022 that Article 74a was never applied, as Member States etc. did not request to make use of Article 74a. Accordingly, there is no materialished ~~link to criminal activity, which the EDPS found to be in breach of Europol’s Regulation;~~ effect. Meanwhile, the 231 contributions under Article 74b, reported to the EDPS in November 2022, have all been assigned with a Data Subject Categorisation (DSC). The suggested wording reflects these facts.

Amendment 19 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that Europol's new mandate, approved in February 2022, allows it to continue processing the data already in its possession; notes that the Agency's new data processing expertise is a vital tool in combating crime in a digitalised world;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (‘The Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annuals accounts of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material respects; recalls that the budget of the Agency increased in 2021 from EUR 183 to 210 million (+14,75%), while members of staff increased from 884 to 9579 (+10,745%) within the same period; 1a; _________________ 1a ECA annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (‘ECA annual report for 2021’), see page 268 (Figure 3.33.1), available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocI tem.aspx?did=62271 [-/-2]979 / 884 = 1,107466 ó10.75 %

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Is concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers, including genetic data and information on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; ~~requests that cooperation among JHA Agency is fully transparen~~expresses deep concern that this expanded surveillance programme not only targets non-suspects, but also loosens restrictions concerning the exchange of personal data between Frontex and Europol as personal sensitive data are transferred in bulk to Europol, in contrast with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and purpose limitation; requests that cooperation among Europol and other JHA Agencies take place in accordance with applicable data protection law, is fully transparent and subject to an adequate framework of oversight and accountability ~~ensured~~; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights, and with data protection standards; in particular; considers that the disclosure of meetings and interactions between the Agency and third parties is required to ensure enhanced transparency.

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ICalls con~~cerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about F~~ the Agency to take measures to continuously reinforce compliance with EU transparency rules5a as well as with fundamental rights and data prontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests that cooperation among JHA Agency is fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standards; ction standards; welcomes the swift appointment of the Europol Fundamental Rights Officer which was introduced with the amendments to the Europol Regulation that entered into force on 28 June 2022; _________________ 5a There was a dedicated session in the LIBE Committee on 8 November 2022 in which both Frontex and Europol provided answers. In addition, the topic was covered in the questions & answers at the Europol JPSG meeting on 24-25 October 2022, and before that, the topic was covered in a related JPSG written question (response given on 10 October 2022). Against this background, both Frontex and Europol provided information. In addition, this LIBE opinion is about the discharge of Europol.

Amendment 22 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Is concerned about~~Welcomes the enhanced and ~~non-~~transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests that cooperation among JHA Aagency is fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standardsies be strengthened;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ICalls concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standards; further calls on Europol to ensure that its cooperation ~~among JHA Agency~~with other JHA Agencies and other partners is fully transparent and accountability ensured; ~~calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fu~~welcomes the swift appointment of the Europol Fundamental Rights Officer, position which was introduced with the amendament~~al rights and data protection standards~~s to the Europol Regulation that entered into force on 28 June 2022;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Is concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; r~~Reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests that cooperation among JHA Agency is fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standards;

Amendment 25 #

José GUSMÃO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Is concerned about the cooperation of these two agencies especially when it comes to border guard operations while the violent pushbacks continue to take place as also reported by the recent Lighthouse Reports revelations; strongly condemns refugees being shot at a European borders while trying to seek asylum;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Is concerned about th~~Notes with concern one individual complaints to the EDPS, introduced against Europol for the refusal to grant access to personal data ~~and the lack of follow up done by the Agency to those requests, conducing to an order by EDPS; is extremely concerned by the delet~~; takes note that the EDPS issued a decision instructing Europol to comply with the data subject request two years after the complaint was introduced; further notes that Europol requested a review by the EDPS of its decision; highlights that by January 2023 the EDPS had not yet issued a final decision ofn those dmat~~a by the Agency without allowing the data subject to access in spite of EDPS decision~~ter; calls on Europol to report to the discharge authority about the progress of this situation and to fully comply with its obligations concerning the protection of personal data;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Is concerned about~~Notes the individual complaints introduced against Europol for access to personal data and the lack of follow up done by the Agency to those requests, conducing to an order by EDPS; is extremely concerned by the deletion of those data by the Agency without allowing the data subject to access in spite of EDPS decision; notes the deletion of those data;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Is concerned about~~Discerns the individual complaints introduced against Europol for access to personal data and the lack of ~~follow up done by the Agency to those requests, conducing to an order by~~a timely decision on the case by the EDPS, almost two years after the citizen complained to the EDPS6a; calls for an immediate closure by the EDPS with support from Europol and the competent authority in the concerned Member State; _________________ 6a Twitter announcements by the concerned citizen, information provided by Europol to the EDPS: The case referred to in the draft LIBE opinion on EDPS discharge concerns one complaint of a citizen (not several cases). Timeline: In March 2020, Europol received the data subject access request, Reply in June 2020: “… there are no data concerning you at Europol to which you are entitled to have access …” [under the Europol Regulation]. In October 2020, the data subject complained against the answer from Europol with the EDPS. In September 2022, the EDPS; is ~~extremely concerned by the deletion of those data by the Agency without allowing the data subje~~sued a decision, instructing Europol to “… comply with the complainant’s request …, by providing the complainant with the full set of information which he is entitled to receive …”. The EDPS outlined at the same time that “Both Europol and the complainant may ask for a review by the EDPS of the present Decision within one month of receiving this letter…..” Europol, in addition to the citizens, requested a review by the EDPS, enclosing, inter alia, supporting evidence, outlining that “… access to the full set of information … was partially rejected by the Police … on the basis of … the national Police Data Act, t~~o access in spite of EDPS decision;~~ ransposing the Law Enforcement Directive …, in order to avoid adverse consequences for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses …” Now in January 2023, the EDPS has not yet issued the final decision in the case, despite the fact that the citizen and Europol requested a review, and the citizen put forward a motion to the CJEU in the case at hand.

Amendment 29 #

José GUSMÃO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes that in an open letter coordinated by European Digital Rights, sent to MEPs before the vote on the broadened Europol mandate, 26 organisations called for (1) mechanisms to ensure that Europol’s powers are used in a proportionate way (prior authorisation, threshold of crime severity and judicial oversight): such mechanisms are critical to protect all EU citizens from the risk of violations of their right to privacy, but also to prevent mass surveillance and protect the rule of law; (2) guarantee for defence rights: a key safeguard is the right for suspects and accused persons to obtain details about how the information was gathered, analysed and processed by Europol. This is right is not only necessary to ensure equality of arms, but also to prevent miscarriages of justice; (3) robust oversight mechanisms: the organisations fear that the lack of guarantees of independence and the limited resources and powers of the new entities will make them unable to sufficiently exert scrutiny on Europol’s day-to-day work;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes the establishment of the Europol Data Protection Experts Network (EDEN), used as a channel to present projects, best practices and events linked to data protection in a law enforcement context;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2021, until the Court of Justice of the European Union delivers its judgement;deleted

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to ~~postpone~~ grant~~ing~~ the discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2021~~, until the Court of Justice of the European Union delivers its judgement;~~ 7a; _________________ 7a The EU Financial Rules do not foresee to connect the outcome of a CJEU proceeding with discharge. In addition, the CJEU case is against the legislator, not Europol.

Amendment 33 #

Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Welcomes the signature of a memorandum of understanding with the Fundamental Rights Agency which would contribute to ensure Europols’s compliance with fundamental rights; believes that such memorandum can contribute to the improvement of the Europol’s compliance with fundamental rights;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Regrets the reported weaknesses in~~Takes note of the reported observations with respect to the functioning of management and control systems, namely the assessment of two cases of a potential conflict of interest ~~situation~~s in relation to aone senior manager taking up a job elsewhere; is concerned that in the case reviewed, wthen Court found that Europol did not issue its decision within the ~~dead~~timeline set in Article 16 of the Staff Regulations and thus effectively authorised the person concerned to take up the new job without any restrictions ~~and in contravention of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations~~in contravention of the above-mentioned article; notes Europol's reply acknowledging the observation and taking action to adapt its procedures in order to respect the deadlines set by the Staff Regulations; further notes that Europol conducted an ex-post assessment which confirmed that it was not exposed to a conflict of interest situation; welcomes the fact that Europol is one of nine EU decentralised agencies having specific provisions covering the risk of 'revolving doors' situations in relation to the members of its Management Board;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Regret~~Discerns the reported ~~weaknesses i~~observations2a on management and control systems, namely ~~two cases of~~in one case2b concerning the process to assess a potential conflict of interest situation in relation to a senior manager taking up a job elsewhere, ~~when~~in which case Europol did not issue its decision within the ~~deadline~~timeline set in Article 16 of the Staff Regulations and thus effectively authorised the person concerned to take up the new job without any restrictions ~~and in contravention of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations;~~ ; notes Europol’s response to the Court’s observations, outlining that an ex-post assessment confirmed that Europol was not exposed2c to a conflict of interest situation; acknowledges that Europol, together with only eight other decentralised agencies2d, has specific provisions covering the risk of ‘revolving door’ situations in relation to members of the board; _________________ 2a ECA annual report for 2021, see page 270 (Section 3.33.9): The ECA refers to “observations on management and control systems” 2b ECA annual report for 2021, see page 270 (Section 3.33.9): The ECA report states that two cases were assessed by Europol, while only in one case, the ECA made comments on the timeline of the decision-making. 2c ECA annual report for 2021, see page 272 2d ECA annual report for 2021, see page 58 (Box 2.8)

Amendment 7 #