2022/2124(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that the Court, in two audited recruitment procedures, found that the selection committees applied the arithmetical average of their members’ individual assessments, instead of the consensual method prescribed by the Agency internal guidelines; further notes the lack of clear standards or instructions to selection committee members on how to assess the individual selection criteria; acknowledges that these weaknesses undermine the principles of transparency and equal treatment of the candidates in recruitment procedures and may expose Frontex to reputational and legal risks;

Amendment 17 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Reiterates its strong concern regarding the media reports in August 2022 whereby the Agency is accused of exploiting cultural mediators by using a contractor who allegedly offers them an effective wage of less than EUR 2,50 an hour, as well as considering that those mediators need to be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week; points the petition initiated by cultural mediators in this regard as well as their complaint to the European Ombudsman; deplores that no information about this concern could be found in the information provided by the Agency to the Parliament;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes the ongoing actions of the Agency in response to the Court’s observations from previous years, including the corrective steps in addressing the risk of double funding from the Internal Security Fund; calls on the Agency to continue undertaking corrective actions, including the adoption and implementation of a sensitive post policy in line with its own internal control standards, and addressing the high level of carry-overs; to inform the discharge authority about the progress made on those matters;

Amendment 19 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Notes that the current occupancy rate in the Agency is 79%, the highest occupancy rate since the new European Border and Coast Guard Regulation in 2019 (2019/1896); acknowledges that timely recruitment and achieving geographical balance remain challenging mainly due to a low coefficient rate for Poland; further notes that the low coefficient rate for Poland is a long standing challenge for the Agency, which has been exacerbated in recent months by record high inflation in the country, reaching 16,6% in December 2022;

Amendment 2 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ~~fact that the Court 1. of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual~~outcome of the European Court of Auditors 2021 Annual Report on EU Agencies for the Financial Year 20212a, which states that Frontex’ accounts ofor the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’ or the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; notes that the budget of the Agency increased from EUR 495 million in 2020 to EUR 741 million (+ 50 %) in 2021 and that the Agency's staff was increased from 1 234 to 1 554 (+ 26 %); year ended 31 December 2021 present fairly, in all material respects, Frontex’ financial position at 31 December 2021, the results of its operations, its cash flows, and the changes in net assets for the year then ended, in accordance with its financial regulation and with accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer; notes that the budget of the Agency increased from EUR 495 million in 2020 to EUR 741 million (+ 50 %) in 2021 and that the Agency's staff was increased from 1 234 to 1 554 (+ 26 %) in the same period, in line with the new mandate and responsibilities provided for in the new 2019 regulation;2b _________________ 2a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/AGENCIES_2021/AGENCIES_2 021_EN.pdf 2b https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3201 9R1896

Amendment 20 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; deeply regrets thate significant delays in implementing the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors; h~~as been met with significant delay; notes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46; deeply~~ighlights the personal role played by the former Executive Director of the Agency in this delay, as well as his lack of cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Officer, against obligations set by the EBCG Regulation; welcomes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46; highlights nevertheless that while 31 Fundamental Rights Monitors (FRM) are recruited at AD level, 15 remain recruited at AST level; calls on the Agency and the Commission to find a solution towards ensuring that all FRMs are recruited at AD level; calls for any further FRM recruitments to be conducted at AD level only; deplores that despite the significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the Fundamental Rights Officer still lacks adequate human resources; urges the Agency and the Commission to provide ~~its~~the fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staff;

Amendment 21 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Not~~Welcomes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; ~~regret~~notes that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors has been met with significant delay; ~~notes that~~welcomes however that since mid-October 2022, the number of fundamental rights monitors ~~now~~ stands at 46; ~~deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff~~recalls that, according to the same provision, the executive director shall assess on an annual basis whether the number of fundamental rights monitors needs to be increased in consultation with the fundamental rights officer; following that assessment, the executive director shall, where necessary, propose an increase ~~for~~in the ~~Agency, the F~~number of fundamental Rrights ~~Officer still lacks adequate human resources~~monitors to the management board for the following year depending on operational needs; notes that out of the 46 staff members, 31 are Administrators and 15 are at Assistant level; fur~~ges the Agency to provide its f~~ther notes that in addition to Fundamental Rights monitors, the Fundamental rRights oOffice~~r with adequate resources and staff~~ has also almost 20 staff members; welcomes the Agency commitment to further appoint staff at Administrative level should the Agency Establishment Plan allow it;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the drawing -up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; regrets that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors has been met with significant delay; notes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46; deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the Fundamental Rights Officer still lacks adequate human resources; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staff;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; regrets that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs) has been met with significant delay; notes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46, 31 at Administrator and 15 at Assistant level; recalls the Parliament and Commission’s long standing call for at least 40 FRMs at AD level; deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the Fundamental Rights Officer still lacks adequate human resources; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staff; condemns that the FRMs are still not granted access to all operational areas, nor to monitor debriefing activities and interviews;

Amendment 24 #

Nadine MORANO, Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ, Brice HORTEFEUX, Arnaud DANJEAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; regrets that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors has been met with significant delay; notes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46; deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the Fundamental Rights Officer still lacks adequate human resources; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staffRegrets the narrative according to which Frontex is, in practice, to be made into a kind of fundamental rights body to check what the Member States are doing at their external borders, as demonstrated by the recruitment of 46 fundamental rights monitors; points out that the role of Frontex is in fact to maintain order and support the Member States in managing and protecting the external borders;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; ~~regret~~notes that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors has been met with significant delay; notes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46; deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the Fundamental Rights Officer still lacks adequate human resources; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staffimplemented, and that there are now 46 such fundamental rights monitors;

Amendment 26 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Takes note of the amendment of the standard operating procedure on the Serious Incident Report (SIR) mechanism to define the role of the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) in this process; stresses that every operational plan should include a transparent reporting mechanism ensuring that every incident in the operational area is reported and properly followed up; stresses that this reporting mechanism should apply regardless of the way these assets are being financed , in order to ensure that Frontex, and in particular the FRO, can monitor the whole operational area and investigate all SIRs or other indications of non-compliance;

Amendment 27 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Stresses that Frontex direct and indirect involvement in border management and border surveillance activities must go hand in hand with preventing and combating fundamental rights violations, and with securing compliance with the principle of non- refoulement, in accordance with the Union acquis; recalls Frontex legal obligation under article 46 of the Frontex Regulation to suspend operations when the Agency cannot operate in line with its fundamental rights obligations;

Amendment 28 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Recalls that the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG), in its report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations already raised concerns, such as that “the Agency found evidence in support of allegations of 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", that the "Agency also failed to adequately respond to internal observations about certain cases of probable fundamental rights violations in Member States" and "that Frontex generally disregarded reports from "several reliable actors"; notes that the FSWG “found deficiencies in Frontex’ mechanisms to monitor, report and assess fundamental rights situations and developments, and makes concrete recommendations for improvement", but "also identified gaps in the framework of cooperation with Member States, which may hamper the fulfilment of Frontex’ fundamental rights obligations"; notes that the FSWG expressed concern "about the lack of cooperation of the Executive Director to ensure compliance with some of the provisions of the EBCG Regulation, notably on fundamental rights"; notes that the FSWG took the position that the Management Board should have played a much more proactive role in acknowledging the serious risk of fundamental rights violations and in taking action to ensure that Frontex fulfils its negative and positive fundamental rights obligations as enshrined in the Regulation; notes that the FSWG “highlights the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission, outside their role in the Management Board as well";

Amendment 29 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the position that the Management Board should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of fundamental rights violations; reiterates the importance to implement the standard operating procedures to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or terminate, or not launch Frontex activities in cases where such risks arise;deleted

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’ or the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; notes that ~~the budget of the Agency increased from EUR 495 million in 2020 to EUR 741~~, according to its statement of revenue and expenditure the budget of the Agency increased to EUR 535.2 million (+ 5046.87 %) in 2021 and that the Agency's staff was increased from 1 234 to 1 554 (+ 26 %);

Amendment 30 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the position that the Management Board ~~should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of f~~and the Executive Director must work closely with the Fundamental Rights Officer and play a proactive role in ensuring that Frontex activities are always in compliance with Fundamental rRights ~~violations; reiterates the importance to implement the standard operating procedures to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or termina~~; welcomes the positive progress made by the Agency, particularly the decision of 25 January 2022 detailing standard operating procedures for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 drafted in accordance with the comments and observations of the Member States and Schengen Associated Countries, Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, and the Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights; takes note,s o~~r not launch Frontex activities in cases where such risks ar~~f the opinion of the Fundamental Rights Officer arguing for more Frontex involvement to monitor and support Member States in their obligations set out in the EU acquise;

Amendment 31 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the position that the Management Board should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of fundamental rights violations; reiterates the importance to constantly review and control the activities of the management team, towards the timely identification and resolution of any mismanagement situations, as well as to implement the standard operating procedures, to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or terminate, or not launch Frontex activities in cases where such risks arise, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896;

Amendment 32 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. TConsiders that the Management board has failed in its mission to uphold respect for fundamental rights by not acting, and thereby bears also the responsibility for the violations highlighted by the OLAF report; takes the position that the Management Board should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of fundamental rights violations; reiterates the importance ~~to implement the standard operating procedures~~of abiding by the Agency’s regulation, in particular article 46 when conditions stipulated by the regulation are met to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or terminate, or not launch Frontex activities in cases where such risks arise;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 34 #

Nadine MORANO, Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ, Brice HORTEFEUX, Arnaud DANJEAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 35 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

5 a. Notes the shared responsibilities that the Agency and the Member States have in the fulfilment of fundamental rights obligations; urges the Agency and Member States to further develop structures of cooperation, information- sharing and exchange of best practices;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Is extremely concerned at the Commission’s willingness to weaken the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in its role of protecting the external borders;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its utmost concerns with regard to allegations of push backs in the context of Frontex operations in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece; reiterates its call on the Agency to suspend its operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;deleted

Amendment 38 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its utmost concerns with regard to allegations of push backs in the context of Frontex operations in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece; ~~reiterates its call on the Agency to susp~~takes note of the findings of the Fundamental Rights Officer Annual report 2021 which states that there was no evidence of Frontex staff’s involvemendt i~~ts ope~~n unlawful practions supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fces in Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria, and the admissible complaints concerned Frontex operational areas in Albania, Croatia, Greece, and Spain; demands the Agency to monitor the correct implementation of return procedures by the Hungarian authorities and to ensure the respect of fundamental rights in returns carried out with Frontex assistance, in line with the Fundamental Rights Officer’s recommendations; takes note that since 2020, there have been no operational reports, either by staff deployed in returns from Hungary or by the independent monitors, no complaints, no serious incident reports, and no communication of any other type to the Agency on alleged violations of fundamental rights in cases of Frontex assisted returns from Hungary; also notes that there is no evidence of violations of fundamental Rrights ~~of the European Union;~~ in case of returns carried out with Frontex assistance in Hungary;6a _________________ 6a https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Images_N ews/2022/Fact_Sheet_on_Frontex_discha rge.pdf

Amendment 4 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that Frontex is by large the EU Agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years~~; recalls that the Agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021, and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period~~, in line with its new responsibilities; recalls that Frontex started with a budget of €6 million in 2005, and it is receiving now €741 million in 2021; recalls that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency has been strengthened in terms of staff and technical equipment with its new mandate in 2019; notes that in view of the complex geopolitical situation, the importance of Frontex in supporting Member States increased significantly and efforts must continue in terms of human and material resources;

Amendment 40 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its ~~utmos~~great concerns with regard to allegations of push backs in the context of Frontex operations in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece; re~~iterates its call on the Agency to suspend its operations supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, t~~calls the conclusion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, that return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; calls on the Agency to refrain from participating in any operations that are incompatible with EU law; notes from the Agency's reply that it performed verifications and concluded that it had never been involved in returns related to the Hungarian legislation deemed incompatible with EU law by the CJEU (HU national Act LXXXIX of 2007 and Act LVIII of 2020 which); takes note that the Agency requires Hungary to confirm special disclaimers concerning procedural aspects when re~~turn decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union~~questing Frontex’ support, ensuring that all Frontex does its utmost to ensure that all return procedures supported by the Agency in Hungary are fully compliant with the relevant EU legal framework on return and asylum; further notes that the Agency increased monitoring activities in Hungarian returns and strengthened consultation and cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Officer on Hungary;

Amendment 41 #

Nadine MORANO, Brice HORTEFEUX

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its utmost concerns with regard to persisting allegations reports of push backs accompanied by ill-treatment of persons in the context of Frontex operations in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece; reiterates its call on the Agency to suspend its operations supporting return-related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; reiterates its concern that the Court of Justice established through its judgement of 30 June 2022 that Lithuanian legislation was incompatible with Union and international law; deplores that the Agency has failed to act in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, even after the judgment of the Court of Justice;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Expresses its utmost concerns with regard to~~Notes the allegations of push backs in the context of Frontex operations in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece; ~~reiterates its~~ calls on the ~~Agency to suspend its operations supporting return-related operations from Hungary as long as,~~competent authorities to investigate the allegations and, a~~s concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatibl~~t the same time, requests that Frontex continue wit~~h Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union~~s operations in those Member States and in Hungary;

Amendment 43 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Welcomes the finding that the Agency had never been involved in returns relating to the Hungarian laws Act LXXXIX of 2009 and Act LVIII of 2020 which were deemed not in line with the European acquis by the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes the confirmation by the Hungarian authorities that they had not requested nor would request Frontex support of cases of migrants to be returned in application of national act LXXXIX of 2007 and Act LVIII of 2020; notes that Frontex increased monitoring activities in Hungarian returns and strengthened consultation and cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Officer on Hungary, among others, in terms of monitoring activities, to further ensure the respect of fundamental rights in returns carried out with Frontex assistance; welcomes that following the opinions and recommendations of the Fundamental Rights Officer regarding his assessment of the situation in Greece, the former Executive Director ad interim and the Fundamental Rights Officer engaged with the Hellenic authorities to establish safeguards for the implementation of the fundamental rights framework in operational activities carried out in Greece; endorses that further to these discussions, the Hellenic authorities drew up an Implementation Plan for the implementation of the safeguards, which was recognized as a good achievement by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer and the Management Board;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes the legal actions against the Agency initiated at the Court of Justice of the European Union, on behalf of victims who had sought protection in Greece and instead of processing their asylum claims were collectively expelled; believes that the persisting reported fundamental rights violations in Greece have reached the level at which the conditions for triggering Article 46(4) of the Agency’s regulation are met; considers that the past Executive Director and the interim Executive Director have failed to act and calls on the new Executive Director to act by triggering article 46(4); calls on the Agency to provide in this regard to the Parliament all relevant documentation assessing the fundamental rights situation in Greece, including the FRO opinion of 1st September 2022, Serious Incident Reports from 2021 and 2022 as well as information about the investigation into the case of the Agency’s cultural mediator that was assaulted by Greek border guards and forced with at least 130 third country national across the border to Turkey, as reported in November 2021 to the Management Board;

Amendment 45 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Highlights the urgent need for a FRO opinion in relation to the Agency’s aerial surveillance in the Central Mediterranean in the context of Article 46 of its Regulation; points that the direct transmission of information to the so- called Libyan coast guards in order for the persons to be intercepted at sea, including when boats are in Member States international waters, is making the Agency’s complicit of crimes that are then perpetrated against the people pulled back to Libya;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations ~~into Frontex~~on the misconductof several individuals employed by the Agency in, and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings and the lack of accountability; ~~considers~~takes note that in October 2022 some media organisations have released the report; while acknowledging that the findings of the OLAF report arcan be a matter of public interest ~~and should be made public without further delay~~, deplores the fact the publication of a confidential report is in clear breach violation of the requirements laid down in Articles 10(3) and 17(4a) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, to respect the confidentiality of the investigation conducted by OLAF as well as the legitimate rights of the persons concerned, including their data protection rights;

Amendment 47 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations into Frontex, and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented and the lack of accountability; considers that the findings of ~~the OLAF~~such report are a matter of public interest and ~~should be made public without further delay~~requests OLAF to promptly make any related finding in its upcoming reports on Frontex publicly available; underlines that the decision not to make the OLAF report on Frontex' activities promptly available to all Member of Parliament contradicted the need for democratic scrutiny over the agency’s misbehaviours and responsibilities for human rights violations;

Amendment 48 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations into Frontex, and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings and the lack of accountability; ~~considers that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and should be made public without further delay;~~ deplores the long delay for MEPs as well as members of the senior management and the FRO to be granted access to the OLAF report; considers that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest; points out that two additional OLAF reports are expected to be presented this year in relation to Frontex; calls for immediate access of Members of the European Parliament to these additional reports when they will be finalised to ensure Members scrutiny as well as of all executive staff of the agency; calls on these reports to be made public

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 5 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Stress~~Underlines that Frontex is bythe large ~~the~~st EU decentralised Agency and that it has received ~~more~~the most significant budget increases inover the last years~~; recalls that the Agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021, and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period~~, bringing it to €535.2 million in 2021; further notes that the budgetary allocation is planned to grow to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period; recalls the great importance and responsibility of the Agency in fully delivering the implementation of its mandate;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the ~~findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations into Frontex, and~~Commission’s attitude in having pressured the Executive Director of Frontex to resign; expresses its utter dismay inat the behaviour and actions ~~described in the findings and the~~of the institution concerned and at its lack of accountability; considers that the flin~~dings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and should be made public~~ks between pro-migrant NGOs and the Commission must be brought to light without further delay;

Amendment 51 #

Nadine MORANO, Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ, Brice HORTEFEUX, Arnaud DANJEAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Reiterates its profound concerns about~~Notes the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations into Frontex~~, and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings and the lack of accountability~~; considers that the findings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and shcould be made public, w~~ithout further delay~~hilst upholding the principle of the protection of personal data and the presumption of innocence;

Amendment 53 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Welcomes the follow-up by the Agency on the publication of the OLAF report, in particular the identification of, aside from findings on serious misbehaviour of individual former employees, three key issues, namely the fact that the Fundamental Rights Officer was prevented from accessing operational information, the fact that the Fundamental Rights Officer was not assigned as case handler for reports on serious incidents with alleged violations of fundamental rights, and the fact that staff members who reported serious incidents to the hierarchy were ignored by the individuals investigated by OLAF; welcomes the work done by the Agency to improve the management culture and promote staff well-being, including the decentralization of decision-making to distribute responsibility and ownership of decisions, encouragement of open dialogue through Agency’s Management meetings, the development of a comprehensive internal communication strategy, strengthening of internal communications team, the enlargement of the network of Confidential Counsellors, whose aim is to foster a safe and inclusive working culture where there is zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination or inappropriate behaviour; further welcomes the decision of the Management Board of July 2022 on the obligations of the Management Board and Executive Director to inform the Consultative Forum on the follow-up of its recommendations and to ensure that action is taken with regard to the recommendations of the Fundamental Rights Officer; notes that the first Internal Audit Capacity internal audit is foreseen for Q-4 2022 - Q-1 2023 focusing on Frontex codes of conduct;

Amendment 54 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Expresses its deepest concern that Frontex Executive Director Ad Interim and one of the candidates for the position of Frontex Executive Director is a person of concern in an ongoing investigation by OLAF; notes that Frontex Management Board was informed about this information in November 2021 but decided not to inform the European Parliament; recalls European Parliament's formal role in the selection procedure for the new Executive Director; calls on the Management Board to diligently inform the European Parliament;

Amendment 55 #

Nadine MORANO, Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ, Brice HORTEFEUX, Arnaud DANJEAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Deplores that, despite the information provided by the OLAF report that information was concealed from “inquiries made by the European Parliament and the Management board” regarding some of the examined incidents, there has been no re- examination at all of these incidents; Sees this as a total lack of respect for the European Parliament’s scrutiny role;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Expresses its deep concerns in relation to media revelations that in the context of the expansion of a mass surveillance programme at Europe’s external borders (PeDRA, or ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis’), Frontex and the European Commission side-lined their own data protection oversight bodies and pursued an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refugees to feed into Europol’s criminal databases;deleted

Amendment 57 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Expresses its deep concerns in relation to media revelations that in the context of the expansion of a mass surveillance programme at Europe’s external borders (PeDRA, or ‘P~~Notes with concern the media reports about misconduct in expansion of the Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis programme (PeDRA), leading to an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refugees; notes from the Agency's reply that the project had been implemented between 2015 and 2017, allowing the Agency to develop capabilities required for processing personal data in accordance with Article 11c of Regulation 1168/2011; further takes note of the Agency's position that it had been processing only operational personal data of suspects of cross- border crime and terrorism, having not started the processing of Ppersonal Ddata ~~for Risk Analysis’), Frontex and the European Commission side-lined their own data protection oversight bodies and pursued an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refuge~~of victims and witnesses; takes note of the Management Board decisions 56/2021, 68/2021 and 69/2021, upon the receipt of the EDPS opinions on the Agency's data protection rules, leading to the Agency's Data Protection Officer to prepare an Action Plan for the implementation of the EDPS recommendations; calls on the Agency to address t~~o feed into Europol’s criminal databases;~~ his situation and ensure full compliance with EU data protection rules, regularly consulting the EDPS over and keeping the discharge authority informed about the status and progress of the reform;

Amendment 59 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Expresses its deep concerns in relation to media revelations that in the context of the expansion of a mass surveillance programme at Europe’s external borders (PeDRA, or ‘Processing of P~~Notes that PeDRA (Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis) was a project implemented between 2015 and 2017 to fight against cross-border crime and that it allowed the Agency to develop capabilities required for processing personal data, as one of the measures undertaken to combat criminal smuggling networks; notes that Frontex has been processing only operational personal Ddata ~~for Risk Analysis’), Frontex and the European Commission side-lined their own d~~of suspects of cross-border crime and terrorism; notes that after receiving the EDPS opinions on Frontex data processing rules, the Agency’s Data pProtection ~~oversight bodies and pursued an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refugees to feed into Europol’s criminal databases~~Officer prepared an Action Plan to implement the EDPS recommendations; asks the Management Board to inform the European Parliament about the implementation of these recommendations and the measures taken to ensure full compliance with the EU data protection rules; further notes that the PeDRA team has not implemented any processing activities that have not been approved by the EDPS;

Amendment 6 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Erik MARQUARDT, Damien CARÊME, Tineke STRIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that Frontex is by large the Agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years; recalls that the Agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021, and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period; considers that such increase is not justified by substantive evidence clearly demonstrating its necessity from an effectiveness and efficiency perspective;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 61 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Expresses ~~its deep concerns in relation to media revelations that in the context of the expansion of a mass surveillance programme at Europe’s external b~~keen interest in the revelations of links between NGOs and migrant traffickers; notes that in Greece legal proceedings are being brought against humanitarian wordkers ~~(PeDRA, or ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis’), Frontex and the European Commission side-lined their own data protection oversight bodies~~ for migrant trafficking, money laundering and fraud; notes that following a long investigation by Italiand p~~ursued an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refugees to feed into Europol’s criminal database~~rosecutors, 21 crew members of migrant rescue vessels from three European NGOs stand accused of colluding with Libyan smugglers;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Recalls that the Progress Lawyers Network (Front-LEX) and the Greek Helsinki Monitor have submitted a legal action against Frontex at the CJEU on behalf of two asylum seekers who had been victims of pushbacks operations during their attempts to seek protection in the EU; underlines that this is the first time that Frontex is being taken to the CJEU over human rights violations;

Amendment 63 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that Frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants, transparency, data protection, and alleged sexual harassment within the Agency led the European Parliament to refuse discharge of the Agency’s 2020 budget; welcomes in this sense the various actions taken by the ad-interim management to improve its activities and standards; notes with satisfaction that these activities tackled budgetary and financial management issues such as the clarification of delegations and dub- delegations for payments authorising offices, greater respect for fundamental rights, through the recruitment of 46 fundamental rights monitors and the enhanced institutional cooperation between the ad-interim executive management and the fundamental rights officer, or the changes in the management culture through a visible shift towards decentralisation, delegation and improved dialogue in the decision-making process; calls on the Agency to continue its commitment towards fully implementing these necessary reforms, also after the appointment of a non-interim Executive Director, and to report to the discharge authority about the progress achieved;

Amendment 64 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that Frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants, transparency, data protection, and alleged sexual harassment within the Agency led the European Parliament to refuse discharge of the Agency’s 2020 budget; reiterates its call upon the Agency to present a detailed roadmap on how it intends to fulfil the outstanding concerns, together with a clear and detailed timeframe for those actions; recalls the repeated criticism from Parliament concerning the Agency’s failure, under the former executive leadership, to protect the fundamental rights of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly among numerous reports and journalistic investigations of its complicity in illegal pushbacks, which led to the resignation of the former executive director; reaffirms that this situation should not happen again;

Amendment 65 #

Nadine MORANO, Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ, Brice HORTEFEUX, Arnaud DANJEAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that Frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants, transparency, data protection, and alleged sexual harassment within the Agency led the European Parliament to refuse dischargePoints out that the European Parliament refused to grant discharge in respect of the Agency’s 2020 budget;

Amendment 66 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that ~~Frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants, transparency, data protection, and alleged sexual harassment within the Agency~~the conclusions presented in the OLAF report on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency under the former executive leadership, together with other observations led the European Parliament to refuse discharge of the Agency’s 2020 budget; notes however that those circumstances were not present in 2021;

Amendment 67 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Reminds that the Agency is accountable to the European Parliament, and that the Parliament is resolved to ensure that the Agency contributes to the continuous and uniform application of Union law, including the Union acquis on fundamental rights, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; highlights that, in order to achieve this goal, an enhanced cooperation with the Frontex Management Board by strengthening the transparency, accountability and democratic oversight of the Agency is needed;

Amendment 68 #

Saskia BRICMONT, Tineke STRIK, Damien CARÊME, Erik MARQUARDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Reiterates its call for the Agency to complete corrective actions to address all outstanding concerns raised by the European Ombudsman, by the Parliament’s Frontex Scrutiny Working Group and by the Consultative Forum;

Amendment 69 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

9 b. Welcomes the various actions taken by Frontex in the past months to improve its activities and standards and to meet the expectations; welcomes particularly the actions taken in the field of budgetary and financial management, fundamental rights, organisational culture and transparency; takes note of the decision of the Management Board in its extraordinary meeting on 20 December 2022, to appoint Mr Hans Leijtens as the new Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency;

Amendment 7 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Stresse~~Deeply regrets that Frontex is by large the Agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years; recalls that the Agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021, and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period despite serious concerns over the lack of implementation of its regulation and fundamental rights violations;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9 c. Welcomes the establishment of Public Register of Documents where a wide range of documents is published; notes that to process the increasing number of applications for public access to document in a timely manner, the Transparency Office has been strengthened; welcomes also the development of the Agency’s external communication strategy cutting down response time to media requests; welcomes the establishment of an Internal Audit Capacity and the adoption of the internal Audit Charter; notes the strengthening of Inspection and Control Office of the Agency;

Amendment 71 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Reiterates that the increased competences and budget of the Agency need to be accompanied with a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency, as well as full respect for and protection of fundamental rights; welcomes in this regard the use by the Agency of a Transparency Register and notes the prioritisation of efforts by both the Management Board and the Executive Management to further enhance integrity and accountability arrangements at the cross-Agency level; notes with satisfaction in this regard the adoption of an Internal Audit Capacity in September 2022; reiterates its dismay for the actions of the previous Executive Director with regards to accountability, transparency and respect for fundamental rights and welcomes the expressed commitment of the ad-interim executive management to fully address these issues; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and fundamental rights compliance;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Reiterates that the increased competences and budget of the Agency need to be accompanied with a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency, as well as full respect for and protection of fundamental rights; stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and fundamental rights compliance; regrets that the agency, despite commitment of the interim Executive Director to increased transparency, has failed to provide individual MEPs of the FSWG with requested documents;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Reiterates that the increased competences and budget of the Agency need to be accompanied with a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency, as well as full respect for and protection of fundamental rights; ~~stresses that the granting of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency is conditional on such accountability and transparency, and fundamental rights compliance;~~

Amendment 74 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Stresses that financial regulation and high management standards has to be respected by all the EU’s institutions;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. 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 structural shortcomings related to respect by Frontex of its fundamental rights obligations have been fully addressed.deleted

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

Amendment 77 #