The European Parliament decided on Wednesday 4 May in Strasbourg to postpone its decision on granting discharge for the 2020 budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), which is in turmoil after the resignation of its director, Fabrice Leggeri.
It also voted in favour of granting discharge to the Court of Auditors’ 2020 budget, whereas a postponement was recommended by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (see EUROPE 12900/21). The request for deferral was rejected: 291 votes in favour of postponement, mainly from the S&D, Greens/EFA and The Left groups (as well as 34 members of Renew Europe), 333 against postponement and 8 abstentions.
Other decisions: a postponement of the discharge for the 2020 expenditure of the European Economic and Social Committee (slow implementation of settlement agreements with a victim of psychological harassment and delays in concluding settlement agreements with two other victims of serious misconduct) and the 2020 expenditure of the Council of the EU/European Council.
Frontex. In a vote by show of hands, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge of the Frontex budget for 2020. In adopting (492 votes in favour, 145 against and 8 abstentions) a report accompanying this decision to postpone the discharge, the European Parliament highlights Frontex’s inability to fulfil the conditions set out in the previous European Parliament discharge report as well as the ongoing investigations launched by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into fundamental rights incidents (pushbacks of migrants).
Rapporteur Tomáš Zdechovský (EPP, Czech Republic), said that although the Agency had made progress over the past 12 months, “We do not have enough information available at the moment to make an informed decision on granting discharge. We will therefore revisit this decision in the autumn of 2022”.
“We need an agency that is strong; we cannot afford to have doubts about the procedures. European citizens should not pay for this”, said Ramona Strugariu (Renew Europe, Romania), on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, during the debate on the discharge. She was of the opinion that Fabrice Leggeri’s resignation has not solved all the problems (see EUROPE 12943/10, 12942/1). Frontex has to respect conditions to fulfil its mandate and respect European law. “Frontex must protect our borders effectively while respecting fundamental rights”, she concluded.
Petri Sarvamaa (EPP, Finland), one of the rapporteurs on the agencies, said there had been cases of administrative mismanagement within Frontex. “I am convinced that we will be able to solve these problems with the next director of Frontex, who must be appointed as soon as possible. Frontex should be strengthened, not weakened”, he also advised.
Joachim Brudziński (ECR, Poland) criticised the “rantings” of some MEPs on this discharge. He would have liked the green light on the discharge so that the agency could concentrate on its mission of “protecting the external borders”.
François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, France), objected to the fact that this procedure was “being exploited by those who want to prevent the agency from carrying out its mission of helping Member States to deal with illegal immigration”.
Court of Auditors. Despite the revelations of the daily newspaper ‘Libération’ on dysfunctions in the internal rules of the institution (see EUROPE 12899/29), the European Parliament has decided to give discharge to the Court of Auditors for the implementation of the 2020 budget. In adopting (361 votes in favour, 240 against and 46 abstentions) the report accompanying this decision, MEPs nevertheless call on the Court to resolve a number of ethical and financial management issues involving its members and President, which have damaged the Court’s reputation and called into question its impartiality.
Isabel García Muñoz (S&D, Spain), rapporteur on the discharge of the institution’s budget, was highly critical, despite President Klaus-Heiner Lehne’s defence of it (see EUROPE 12903/26).
“Does it set an ethical example [that the president of the EU Court of Auditors] receives a daily allowance and a monthly residence allowance in Luxembourg while sharing and subletting a house to members of his own cabinet?” she demanded. Isabel García Muñoz also criticised the fact that members of the EU Court of Auditors “use official cars for personal use in exchange for €100 a month or that missions are used to attend party events”.
Petri Sarvamaa found it “sad and unfortunate” that the EU Court of Auditors’ 2020 budget discharge procedure is so “politicised”.
Klaus-Heiner Lehne dismissed the accusations of wrongdoing out of hand. “I don’t see what more we can do on the 2020 budget. The procedure is legal and it seems logical to me that this discharge should be granted”, he concluded.
Commission budget. Eventually, the European Parliament gave discharge to the European Commission on the implementation of the EU general budget for 2020. However, the rapporteur, Olivier Chastel (Renew Europe, Belgium), raised “serious concerns about the significant error rate, the outstanding balance of over 300 billion and a problematic absorption capacity”.
MEPs, in adopting (451 votes in favour, 175 against and 17 abstentions) Mr Chastel’s report, call for the introduction of risk audits and a scoreboard to assess the effectiveness of spending under the ‘Recovery and Resilience Facility’, the main instrument at the heart of Next Generation EU. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)