European Parliament to Frontex: drop the demand for legal fees

In an unprecedented move, the European Parliament has called on Frontex, the EU’s border police force, to withdraw its demand for legal fees - and to refrain from doing it again in the future.

Fabrice Leggeri, Frontex Executive Director –

Frontex

Last month, the EU General Court ruled we would have to pay Frontex € 10,520 in legal fees after we had lost our lawsuit against the EU border police force for information on their operations in the Central Mediterranean. The Court’s decision came after Frontex had taken us to court seeking to force us to pay twice as much: € 23,700.

Now, the European Parliament has told Frontex it should not claim the money, calling on the agency to drop its demand for legal fees - for our case, and for any other transparency lawsuits in the future. This demand had been previously put forward by 44 human rights NGOs and more than 87,000 citizens.

The Parliament states that “charging civil society with excessively high legal fees has a chilling effect on civil society’s access to justice”. It says that it is “deeply concerned” with Frontex’s decision to demand € 23,700 from us and calls on Frontex to “withdraw its demand for recovering of the costs”

The amendment put forward by MEP Bas Eickhout was approved with 334 votes in favour, 300 against and 60 abstentions.

Frontex’s abuses cost the agency its budget

The call on Frontex to drop its demand for legal fees comes as part of the EU Parliament’s decision not to approve the agency’s accounts for 2019.

Last week, Frontex became the only EU agency whose budget was not signed off. Among the reasons the EU Parliament gave for this decision were the ongoing investigations around human rights violations committed by Frontex, and the border agency having lied to the Parliament about its meetings with industry lobbyists.

It is now up to Frontex to respect or not the Parliament’s decision not to claim legal fees from us.

According to EU law, Frontex is accountable to the European Parliament. Notwithstanding, the EU border police force, often described as unaccountable, has repeatedly shown its disregard for the EU’s only democratically-elected body.

see the Parliament’s decision

European Parliament 2019-2024 TEXTS ADOPTED P9_TA(2021)0191 2019 discharge: European Border and Coast Guard Agency 1. European Parliament decision of 28 April 2021 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019 (2020/2167(DEC)) The European Parliament, – having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, – having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on EU agencies for the financial 1 year 2019, together with the agencies' replies , – having regard to the statement of assurance2 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2019, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 1 March 2021 on discharge to be given to the Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2019 (05793/2021 – C9-0064/2021), – having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation 3 (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 , and in particular Article 70 thereof, 1   OJ C 351, 21.10.2020, p. 7. ECA annual report on EU agencies for the 2019 financial year: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/AGENCIES_2019/agencies_ 2019_EN.pdf. 2   OJ C 351, 21.10.2020, p. 7. ECA annual report on EU agencies for the 2019 financial year: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/AGENCIES_2019/agencies_ 2019_EN.pdf. 3   OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council 1 Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC , and in particular Article 76 thereof, – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing 2 Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 , and in particular Article 116 thereof, – having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council3, and in particular Article 105 thereof, – having regard to Articles 32 and 47 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council4, – having regard to Rule 100 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0081/2021), 1. Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency for the financial year 2019; 2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below; 3. Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). 1  OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1. 2  OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1. 3  OJ L 122, 10.5.2019, p. 1. 4  OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 42.
2. European Parliament decision of 28 April 2021 on the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019 (2020/2167(DEC)) The European Parliament, – having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, – having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on EU agencies for the financial 1 year 2019, together with the agencies' replies , – having regard to the statement of    assurance 2 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2019, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 1 March 2021 on discharge to be given to the Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2019 (05793/2021 – C9-0064/2021), – having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation 3 (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 , and in particular Article 70 thereof, – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC4, and in particular Article 76 thereof, – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/16245, and in particular Article 116 thereof, 1   OJ C 351, 21.10.2020, p. 7. ECA annual report on EU agencies for the 2019 financial year: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/AGENCIES_2019/agencies_ 2019_EN.pdf. 2   OJ C 351, 21.10.2020, p. 7. ECA annual report on EU agencies for the 2019 financial year: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/AGENCIES_2019/agencies_ 2019_EN.pdf. 3   OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1. 4   OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1. 5   OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1.
– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council1, and in particular Article 105 thereof, – having regard to Articles 32 and 47 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council2, – having regard to Rule 100 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0081/2021), 1. Postpones the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). 1  OJ L 122, 10.5.2019, p. 1. 2  OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 42.
3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019 (2020/2167(DEC)) The European Parliament, – having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2019, – having regard to Rule 100 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0081/2021), A. whereas, according to its statement of revenue and     expenditure ,1 the final budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2019 was EUR 330 107 000, representing an increase of 14,36 % compared to 2018; whereas the Agency’s budget derives mainly from the Union budget; B. Whereas pursuant to Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU)       2019/1896   2 the European Border and Coast Guard is to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights in the performance of its tasks under that Regulation in accordance with relevant Union law, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the 'Charter'), and relevant international law, including the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol thereto, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and obligations related to access to international protection, in particular the principle of non-refoulement; whereas Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 has not only provided for new resources for the Agency in the area of fundamental rights but has also put in place a new comprehensive internal independent mechanism designed to monitor the compliance of the Agency’s operational activities with fundamental rights; whereas this mechanism is based on the reinforced role and the independence of the Agency’s fundamental rights officer reporting to the management board but also becoming a delegated appointing authority for his or her own staff; C. Whereas pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 the fundamental rights officer is to be assisted by a deputy fundamental rights officer and at least 40 fundamental rights monitors acting under the hierarchal supervision of the fundamental rights officer as his or her “eyes and ears” on the ground; D. Whereas the Roadmap for the implementation of the European Border and Coast Guard 2.0 which the Agency and the Commission set up in July 2019, stressed the need to bring the relevant framework for fundamental rights monitoring in line with the letter and spirit 1   OJ C 143, 30.4.2020, p. 6. 2   Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1).
of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, in particular as regards the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; E. Whereas the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’), in its report on the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2019 (the ‘Court's report’), states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the Agency’s annual accounts are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular; whereas the Court recently launched an audit to examine whether the Agency has so far provided effective support to Member States in the implementation of European integrated border management which will be finalised in 2021; F. Whereas the European Ombudsman has opened an inquiry (CASEOI/5/2020/MHZ) to assess how the Agency deals with alleged breaches of fundamental rights, in particular to assess the effectiveness and transparency of the Agency's complaints mechanism for those who believe their rights have been violated in the context of the Agency's border operations, as well as the role and independence of Agency's fundamental rights officer; G. Whereas the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has opened an investigation over allegations of harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks concerning the Agency; H. Whereas since December 2019 the Agency is implementing a new mandate with an important and essential scale-up in terms of missions and staff, requiring an adequate budget; Budget and financial management 1. Notes with satisfaction that the budget-monitoring efforts during the financial year 2019 resulted in a budget implementation rate of 99,84 %, representing an increase of 1,46 % compared to 2018; notes with concern that the payment appropriations execution rate was low at 69,13 %, representing a decrease of 0,56 % compared to 2018; 2. Notes from the Court’s report that in 2019 the Agency had financing agreements with cooperating countries for operational activities, representing 55 % of the Agency’s budget; notes that the Agency has taken steps to improve the ex ante verifications and has re-introduced ex post verifications on reimbursements in 2019; expresses concern over the Court’s emphasis that the reimbursement of equipment-related expenditure is still based on actual costs and deeply deplores the fact that the project to move to unit-cost based reimbursements is still not completed; highlights that the procedure has not been completed in spite of this being a recurrent situation that had been raised in the previous discharge procedure; notes with great concern from the Court’s report that cooperating countries had not always presented cost claims supported by invoices, or by other evidence, duly substantiating the actual costs incurred in operations and that there were delays for providing supporting documents; at the same time, the Court’s report stresses that the duty to submit accurate and timely supporting evidence together with the cost claims lies with the cooperating countries; notes from the Agency’s reply that during ex post control the Agency ascertained the questioned expenditure with bank statements and the beneficiary was notified that pro-forma invoices would no longer be accepted as supporting documents even if such invoices respected the applicable national regulatory framework; furthermore, delays in providing supporting documents were associated with the implementation of a simplified grant scheme for the deployment of officers, and the final payment procedure in 2019 was therefore much extended in order to ensure sound
financial management; is deeply unsatisfied with the lack of commitment to addressing this situation from the side of the Agency's leadership; calls on the Agency to cease all remaining reimbursements for any cost claims not supported by invoices; urges the Agency to finalise the move to unit-cost based reimbursements immediately and to fully apply all principles of sound financial management; 3. Deplores the fact that according to the Court’s report the Agency had modified the contractual arrangements of reconstruction works carried out on the Agency’s premises at a late stage of the project and introduced the possibility of a pre-financing for works still to be completed, although initially payments were to be made only when works were accepted, notes with great concern that as a result a key element of control was forfeited and the consumption of funds did not reflect the real progress of the works; notes from the Agency’s reply that the pre-financing was a solution that enabled the reconstruction of the building to continue and that the Agency's key control remained since the pre-financing was paid to the landlord, who could not make a payment to the contractor before a portion of completed works had been accepted by the Agency and any unused funds were returned to the Agency by the landlord, all of which was guaranteed by contractual safeguards; calls on the Agency to review its mechanisms concerning such payments and ensure compliance with the principles of sound financial management; 4. Considers the explanation of the Agency particularly weak, in light of information on a possible fraud case involving Polish IT software where a similar modus operandi was applied; 5. Points to recent media reports on expensive annual events, the costs of which amounted to almost half a million euros in 2019; recalls that the Agency is financed by Union taxpayers’ money; welcomes in this respect the Agency’s decision to stop the costly annual event; calls on the Agency to be more prudent in its implementation of the budget, when it comes to the organisation of events; Performance 6. Notes that the Agency uses certain measures as key performance indicators to assess the added value provided by its activities and also uses other measures to improve its budget management, such as satisfaction level by means of online surveys, late payment evaluation and vacancy rate; calls on the Agency to clarify why “refusal of entry” is part of the key performance indicators; 7. Stresses the essential role of the Agency as the cornerstone of the Union's efforts to safeguard the area of freedom, security and justice and to guarantee the freedom of movement without internal borders checks; underlines that the Agency, by mutualising resources and means at a Union level in the field of migration policy, is the main tool of Union solidarity in that field; 8. Notes that Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 was adopted on 13 November 2019 and entered into force on 4 December 2019, with an extended mandate and resources, including the creation of the standing corps with executive powers; notes that the Agency had to implement major internal restructuring and faced the challenge of designing new tasks in order to fulfil the provisions of the new mandate; notes that the Agency was faced with an unforeseen reduction in the number of administrators to be employed in 2020 that led to adjustments in the Agency’s establishment plan; is concerned by the length of the ongoing
discussion between the Agency and the Commission concerning those adjustments; calls on the Commission and the Agency to quickly find an adequate solution to ensure a proper and timely implementation of the Agency's new mandate; 9. Underlines the challenges posed for the Agency by the long planning cycle leading to the adoption of the single programming document in light of the volatile environment in which it is operating; 10. Notes that the first technical and operational European integrated border management strategy was adopted in March 2019; 11. Notes that the Agency has taken the lead in the initiative to establish a common liaison office space in Brussels for Justice and Home Affairs agencies, in order to benefit from an efficient use of resources, to share facilities and services and to foster the networking effect; further notes that an administrative arrangement with requirements related to the common office space and the terms of cooperation among partners is being finalised and the next steps, envisaged for the period from 2020 to 2021, will be procuring, fitting out and eventually relocating to the new premises; 12. Expresses great concern over the Court’s findings of the previous year that, although the Agency moved to its current premises in 2014, the Agency still has no comprehensive business continuity plan approved by the management board; notes from the Agency’s reply that an ad interim business continuity policy and business continuity plan is being developed and that the adoption of the business continuity plan was envisaged in 2020; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority with regard to the adoption and implementation stages of the business continuity plan; 13. Notes that in line with Article 80(1) of Regulation 2019/1896 the Agency, with the contribution of and subject to the endorsement by the fundamental rights officer, is to draw up, implement and further develop a fundamental rights strategy and action plan, including an effective mechanism for monitoring respect for fundamental rights in all the activities of the Agency; notes that the action plan should implement the strategy by ensuring practical fundamental rights safeguards that guide the implementation of the Agency’s operational activities; deplores the fact that this action plan has yet not been adopted; 14. Deplores the fact that despite repeated calls of Parliament and a significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the fundamental rights officer still lacks adequate human resources and is therefore clearly hampered to properly conduct the tasks that are entrusted to him or her; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staff, in particular in relation to further developing and implementing the Agency’s strategy to monitor and ensure the protection of fundamental rights; reminds the Agency of the importance of adhering to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Union, laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 ; calls on1 the Agency to establish a regular mechanism by which the Agency briefs Members of the European Parliament about ongoing operations including about serious incidents and other reports about violence and non-respect of fundamental rights at the external borders; 1   OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.
15. Stresses the importance of increasing the digitalisation of the Agency in terms of internal operations and management procedures; stresses the need for the Agency to continue to be proactive in that regard in order to avoid a digital gap between the agencies at all costs; draws attention, however, to the need to take all the necessary security measures to avoid any risk to the online security of the information processed; 16. Notes from the Agency’s reply that an internal ICT security and cybersecurity team has been established; encourages the Agency to finalise its Cybersecurity action plan 2020–25 without undue delay; calls on the Commission to support the Agency in finding solutions to advance the digitalisation of the Agency; 17. Welcomes the creation of a register of documents but considers that the current register does not fulfil the legal requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20011 as all documents produced or held by the Agency should be listed in the register; acknowledges that in line with Article 4 of that Regulation, the Agency is to refuse access to documents where it is in the public interest as regards public security, defence and military matters, international relations or the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union or a Member State; reiterates its call on the Agency to ensure full transparency in all its activities; more particularly, given the expected further significant overall increase of the Agency’s budget in the coming years and its enhanced responsibilities, calls on the Agency to provide it with more detailed information on the implementation of its budget on operational activities per chapter listing the precise activities financed under the articles and items; regrets that the Court’s report assesses only legality and regularity of the Agency’s spending; given the size and scope of the Agency's budget, calls on the Court to conduct a more qualitative assessment of the Agency’s performance in the future, which would allow the discharge authority to better assess how the Agency’s budget is being spent; Staff policy 18. Regrets that, on 31 December 2019, the establishment plan was only 75,83 % implemented, with 367 temporary agents appointed out of 484 temporary agents authorised under the Union budget (compared to 418 authorised posts in 2018); notes that, in addition, 214 contract agents and 168 seconded national experts worked for the Agency in 2019; 19. Notes the ongoing recruitment procedure of the fundamental rights officer, the deputy fundamental rights officer and fundamental rights monitors; underlines the close cooperation between the Agency and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2019 on the establishment of the specific selection criteria for the recruitment of the fundamental rights officer and 40 fundamental rights monitors; regrets, however, the delays in the recruitment procedures; recalls that under Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 the Agency was obliged to have recruited at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020; notes that the first group of fundamental rights monitors was expected to be recruited in March 2021; notes that the scope of duties of the fundamental rights officer has been increased by Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and the post thus had to be defined as a middle management function requiring a specific selection procedure; notes that those organisational and personnel changes have raised ambiguities regarding legal implications 1   Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p.43).
and implementation; calls on the Agency to prioritise handling of fundamental rights; insists therefore that the Agency recruit the 40 fundamental rights monitors at the appropriate AD level as required under Article110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 without any undue delay and ensure that the future fundamental rights monitors have the necessary standing to perform their duties independently; 20. Is concerned by the lack of gender balance reported for 2019, in particular at the level of the management board (48 men and 8 women); calls on the Agency to improve the significant gender imbalance at management board level; asks the Commission and the Member States to take into account the importance of ensuring gender balance when nominating their members to the Agency’s management board; 21. Notes that the Agency has adopted a policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing harassment on 1 August 2019; expresses its concern about the five cases of harassment reported by the Agency in 2019 and notes that further allegations of harassment have been made more recently by whistleblowers; calls on the management board to assess whether the Agency's policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing harassment is correctly implemented and effective; 22. Expresses concern about reports from journalistic investigations regarding the attitude of high ranking officials towards lower ranking staff; highlights in particular its concerns about reports of insulting and disrespectful behaviour towards staff, as well as remarks that allegedly control mechanisms at the Agency are becoming less effective; notes that the Agency had not reported any official complaints about those actions; notes that, according to its mandate, the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group will monitor the Agency's internal management, including procedures for reporting and handling of complaints; encourages the Agency to cooperate with the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group to clarify any concerns in this regard and follow up on future recommendations made regarding this aspect on the functioning of the Agency; 23. Notes from the Court’s report that in 2019, the Agency continued to recruit new staff in line with its enlarged mandate, with an intake for the year of 218 newcomers; notes that, although the recruitment procedure is deemed successful, the Agency should improve the guidance given to selection committee members and verify more closely candidates’ financial entitlements for the salary payments; notes from the Agency’s reply that the Agency organises training for selection committee members to ensure they have proper knowledge to fulfil their role, respecting the margin of discretion and independence every selection committee holds; furthermore, the rights and entitlements established for staff members were communicated on 6 February 2020, after the payroll was published and executed; notes that newcomers’ salaries are checked against the decisions and, where discrepancies are discovered, the newcomer must be informed by the twelfth day of the month; notes with concern the recent media reports according to which the Agency did not properly communicate on the status of recruitment procedures to candidates; calls on the Agency to improve its communication in this regard; 24. Notes that 2019 was the fourth year of the five-year growth plan following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/16241 that significantly increased the Agency’s budget and staff; 1   Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC)

This article is available in other languages.

Bild des Autors

Luisa Izuzquiza

Luisa leitet unser Brüsseler Büro und kümmert sich um Frontex.

Einen Moment noch! Bevor Sie gehen, haben wir noch eine Frage für Sie: Wie wahrscheinlich ist es, dass diese Informationen bekannt geworden wären, wenn es FragDenStaat nicht gäbe? Hätten andere Medien das Originaldokument veröffentlicht? Hätten andere geklagt, um allen Bürger:innen zukünftig die gleichen Chancen zu ermöglichen?

Unsere Recherchen, Klagen und Kampagnen sind essentiell, um unsere Politik und Verwaltung transparenter zu machen! Wir kämpfen für eine informierte Zivilgesellschaft, um unsere Demokratie zu stärken. Daraus schlagen wir kein Profit. Im Gegenteil: Als gemeinnütziges Projekt sind wir auf Spenden angewiesen. Werden Sie also Informationsbefreier:in und unterstützen Sie unsere Arbeit!

Jetzt spenden

Klage: Wie beriet das Karenzzeit-Gremium zu Sigmar Gabriel?

Ob Tönnies oder Deutsche Bank – der ehemalige Bundesminister und SPD-Chef Sigmar Gabriel ist schon länger in der deutschen Wirtschaft umtriebig. Ob er dabei gegen rechtliche Auflagen verstoßen hat, überprüft ein Gremium, dessen Beratungen jedoch geheim bleiben. Daher klagen wir.