On discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agencies for the financial year 2022: performance, financial management and control

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 ʽCourtʼ) declared that, overall, the audit of the annual accounts of the agencies for the year ended 31 December 2022 and the revenue and payments underlying them confirmed the positive results reported in previous years and that the Court confirmed the legality and regularity of the annual accounts of all justice and home affairs (JHA) agencies and the revenue underlying those accounts for the financial year 2022;

2. Welcomes the agencies prompt response and unequivocal support provided to Member States to deal with the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; Reiterates the important role of the JHA agencies, as they are indispensable for the implementation of EU policies, and the important support they ensure to the Union institutions and bodies and Member States in the sectors of fundamental rights, security and justice, by carrying out operational, analytical, managerial and monitoring tasks; reiterates therefore the need to ensure adequate financial and human resources to JHA agencies; notes that all agencies should effectively perform their mandates;

3. Welcomes that the accounts of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) include disclosures regarding the impact of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine on their activities; calls on the other JHA agencies to conduct similar disclosures;

4. Notes that for the 2022 financial year, the Court issued unqualified (“clean”) audit opinions on the accounts of 39 agencies; notes that the Court found that the payments underlying the accounts were legal and regular for all agencies except for the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) and the European Union Agency of Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for which qualified opinions were issued;notes that this was the case for eu-LISA due to six irregular payments in relation to purchase of hardware , custom development and testing, and software licences; acknowledges the resonse of eu-LISA that it has already undertaken the necessary revisions to its contract management practice; further notes that CEPOL had irregular payments in relation to accommodation, shuttle and parking services and travel services; recalls that the CEPOL has taken corrective action to address the issues identified;

5. Stresses that the Court issued ‘emphasis on the matter’ paragraphs for eleven agencies, including (i) for the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) due to the implementation of “SUMMA” a new pilot budgetary and accounting system rolled out by the Commission, (ii) for eu-LISA because of delays in the implementation of the Entry/Exit System and the related impact on eu-LISA operations; acknowledges the response of eu-LISA that it has already undertaken the necessary revisions to its contract management practice; and (iii) for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) regarding the accounting system which could not be validated because of missing information relating to an IT system, owned by the Commission, which supplies accounting data and another disclosure regarding the calculation of the contributions from Schengen associated countries;

6. Acknowledges the weaknesses in public procurement procedures which are increasing and remain the main source of irregular payments and that the Court reported shortcomings in previous years for 24 EU agencies, including in relation to contracts signed by CEPOL, EUAA, eu-LISA, Eurojust, and Frontex; calls on the agencies to further improve their public procurement procedures;

7. Emphasizes the weaknesses of 16 EU agencies in various aspects of budgetary management and management and control systems concerning deficiencies in data quality and completeness, expenditure implemented without the proper delegation of power of an authorising officer, absence of adequate ex-post/ex-ante checks, and weaknesses in management of grants and commitments;

8. Calls on the agencies involved to rely as much as possible on permanent staff and on the Commission to ensure appropriate human resources allocations for this purpose; further calls on the agencies to comply with their mandates and the repeated calls from the Parliament to end the huge dependency on interim contracts and temporary workers;

9. Is concerned that that the Court’s report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2022 does not contain any remarks about the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS); urges the Court to include the annual accounts of the EDPS in its yearly audit and issue a report, considering the importance of transparency for the proper functioning of all Union bodies;

10. Notes the Court’s observation that the agreements between the EU and the Schengen associated countries (SAC) serving as legal basis for calculating their contributions to EUAA’s and Frontex’ budget are unclear and allow divergent interpretations, resulting lower contribution by SAC; recalls that this is an established practice for calculations of the SAC contributions; calls the Commission to examine these agreements;

11. Is concerned that agencies are particularly prone to the risk of ‘revolving door’ situations due to their governance model (AM 9 Bricmont); considers that the EU legal framework for managing ‘revolving door’ and conflict of interests risks should define a common legal basis defining a minimum level of requirements to prevent such situations, as well as the manner in which monitoring compliance of current and former staff and members of management boards should take place; welcomes that FRA and Europol have provisions covering the risk of ‘revolving door’; call Agencies to take over this practice; welcomes that most agencies publish the declarations of interest of their senior management and members of their respective management boards; recalls that such declarations should have a clear format allowing for the listing of any interests that may come in conflict with the nature of the position occupied; calls on the remaining agencies to follow this model and publish yearly declarations without further delay; calls on the Commission to propose changes to prevent any risk of ‘revolving door’ and conflict of interest;

12. Stresses that EU agencies shall proactively contribute to national and Union efforts while carrying out their tasks in full cooperation with Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and Member States, avoiding any duplication of work, promoting synergy and complementarity; further calls on the agencies, where and when appropriate, to achieve financial savings by cooperating closely with other Union institutions, agencies and bodies, especially those that have their seat in the same Member State;

13. Reminds that cooperation among JHA agencies must be fully transparent and accountable; requests all JHA agencies to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with financial regulations, fundamental rights and data protection and sound budgetary management standards; considers that the disclosure of meetings and interactions between JHA agencies and third parties when this can be ensured without prejudice to its operational activities, contributes to ensuring transparency by JHA agencies; urges JHA agencies to step up efforts in this direction; notes the recommendations issued by the European Ombudsman on access to documents; considers that the delays in dealing with access to documents requests are leading to a lack of democratic scrutiny and accountability; calls on all JHA agencies and the European Commission to address recommendations by the European Ombudsman in this regard as a matter of priority;

14. Calls on all JHA agencies to take into account sustainability in their overall business processes in order to improve the agencies’ environmental performance, and to report to the discharge authority on implemented measures and progress;

15. Regrets the lack of gender balance and diversity in the Management boards and within the staff of some JHA agencies; recalls that member states nominate members to management boards and Agencies have limited competence in this regard; calls on all JHA agencies to ensure a gender balanced distribution on all levels of staff; further calls on all JHA agencies to take into consideration geographical balance when conducting their recruitment procedures and report to the discharge authority on implemented measures and progress achieved; further calls on all JHA agencies to develop internal policies and practices to ensure inclusiveness and diversity, and prevent any type of discrimination; asks the Court to systematically inform about it in its future reports;

16. Urges all JHA agencies to implement a clear anti-harassment and anti-racism policy to prevent and firmly condemn any such behaviour within the organisation; recalls that whistle-blower protection within EU agencies is very important and should be in line with directive (EU)2019/1937; insists that a strong transparency and whistle-blower culture should be encouraged;

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Date adopted

23.1.2024

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

44

2

8

Members present for the final vote

Magdalena Adamowicz, Abir Al-Sahlani, Katarina Barley, Pietro Bartolo, Theresa Bielowski, Patrick Breyer, Saskia Bricmont, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, 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, Lukas Mandl, 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

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

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

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Key to symbols: