On discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2022

PA_NonLeg

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

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 2022 to be legal and regular in all material respects;

2. Welcomes that Europol implemented actions from the Discharge Authority made on internal controls, data protection, external communication and the observations of the Court particularly concerning the process to assess a potential conflict of interest; appreciates further activities concerning gender diversity and digitalisation of administrative procedures; welcomes further digitalisation, through the use of the Commission information systems and tools in the areas of human resources management and contract management;

3. Recalls the Court’s observation on the legality and regularity of transactions connected to the daily subsistence allowance for three Seconded National Experts (SNEs) from the Netherlands; recalls that Europol identified and disclosed the overpayment of EUR 155 553, with respect to the daily subsistence allowance for three SNEs from the Netherlands in 2022; notes Europol’s reply that in line with the requirements set out in Article 101 of the Financial Regulation 2018/1046, Europol decided to waive the recovery of the overpayment to uphold the relationship of trust and cooperation with the sending authorities; welcomes that Europol enhanced ex-ante verification including resource allocation to provide effective assurance on the legality of the corresponding financial entitlements prior to payment in the future;

4. Recalls the Court’s observation on the legality and regularity of transactions connected to operational grant to fund the activities of a national police force in a member state; notes that the Court observed that part of the grant, amounting to EUR 0.2 million was irregular; notes Europol’s response reacting that the operational grant concerned the activities of SIUs coordinated by one member state therefore Article 186(4)(c) of the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 and the corresponding specific implementation guidance of the Commission on grant administration, Value Added Tax (VAT) was an eligible cost; welcomes that Europol will assess the eligibility of VAT in operational grants in light of the Court’s observations;

5. Notes with satisfaction that in 2022, Europol accepted 98 068 operational contributions and supported 2 758 operations related to five Multi-Annual Strategic Priorities; notes Europol activities reflecting the Work Program for 2022 including on Development of operational information technology and information management capabilities, Operational Coordination, Combating Serious and Organised Crime, Cyber Crime, Financial and Economic Crime, Counter-Terrorism Strategic and Analysis Coordination and Governance, support and administration; welcomes Europol’s cooperation with Ukraine and the support provided to Member States and bordering countries increased early in the year in the context of the war; welcomes that Europol suspended its cooperation with Russia;

6. Notes that on 16 September 2022, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union annul two provisions of the amended Europol Regulation, namely Articles 74a and 74b, arguing that seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; further notes the Order of the General Court in Case T-578/22 from 6 September 2023 by which the action brought by EDPS against the amended Europol regulation was deemed inadmissible and as regards any effects of the contested provisions on the EDPS’s decision of 3 January 2022, EDPS cannot rely on them in support of his action; notes that the EDPS has appealed the Case T-578/22 and that it is mandated to supervise the legality of personal data processing of Europol under Regulation (EU) 2016/794; welcomes the efforts by Europol to address EDPS recommendations in particular that all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended Europol Regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a Data Subject Category (DSC);

7. Notes that Europol continued to work closely with eu-LISA on establishing automated checks of travel application data from the European Travel Information & Authorisation System (ETIAS) against Europol data; notes that entry into operation of the ETIAS was postponed to November 2023 by the decision of the Council; appreciates that Europol expanded its cooperation with European Public Prosecutors Office (EPPO) in 2022 whereas by the end of the year it supported 21 major EPPO operations in the area of tax fraud;

8. Notes that the amended Europol Regulation which entered into force on 28 June 2022requires an increased oversight of its activities such as through the establishment and the appointment of a Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) who is obliged to report directly to the Executive Director within Europol; further expresses that the extension of Europol’s competences as regards support to Member States and cooperation with private parties, third countries and international organisations would require the establishment of additional internal and external oversight mechanisms to guarantee respect of EU law and ensure protection of fundamental rights;

9. Recalls the findings of the EDPS’s audit report on Europol on 16 December 2022, which audited specific checks of third country nationals’ datasets held by Europol; recalls that EDPS found that the general process for the assessment of information provided by partners on minors (including minors under 15 years old) is clear and well developed; recalls that EDPS found multiple cases where attributing the same level of suspicion (in terms of classification) to data of minors apparently involved in relatively minor infraction within a broader framework of an organised crime group may not meet the threshold of ‘strict proportionality’ threshold; stresses that Europol has the obligation to respect the principle of ‘strict proportionality’ established in Article 30(1) of the Europol Regulation;

10. Notes the reports by media of alleged cases of conflict of interests of former Europol staff; recalls that the Ombudsman opened an inquiry on 20 December 2023 on how Europol dealt with the moves of two former staff members to positions related to combatting online child sexual abuse; notes that the Agency’s reply that it examined the reports and reported inter alia that no conflict of interests by former staff has been identified; calls for allegations to be thoroughly investigated and outcome reported to the Discharge authority;

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Date adopted

23.1.2024

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

54

2

0

Members present for the final vote

Magdalena Adamowicz, Abir Al-Sahlani, Katarina Barley, Pietro Bartolo, Theresa Bielowski, Patrick Breyer, Saskia Bricmont, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Damien Carême, Patricia Chagnon, Lena Düpont, Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová, Cornelia Ernst, Nicolaus Fest, Maria Grapini, Sylvie Guillaume, Andrzej Halicki, Evin Incir, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Patryk Jaki, Marina Kaljurand, Assita Kanko, Łukasz Kohut, Moritz Körner, Alice Kuhnke, Jeroen Lenaers, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Erik Marquardt, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Diana Riba i Giner, Isabel Santos, Birgit Sippel, Vincenzo Sofo, Tineke Strik, Jana Toom, Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Elena Yoncheva, Javier Zarzalejos

Substitutes present for the final vote

Cyrus Engerer, José Gusmão, Beata Kempa, Leopoldo López Gil, Janina Ochojska, Anne-Sophie Pelletier, Bergur Løkke Rasmussen, Róża Thun und Hohenstein, Maria Walsh, Tomáš Zdechovský

Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote

Andrus Ansip, Hildegard Bentele, Maria da Graça Carvalho, Marisa Matias, Caroline Nagtegaal

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion:

Entity and/or person

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement (“EUROPOL”)

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Key to symbols: