The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Recommendations for Frontex to address deficiencies.

Benefits and problems from the EU membership.

Re: Recommendations for Frontex to address deficiencies.

Postby supporttheunderdog » Tue May 03, 2016 2:56 pm

You can find the answer further down

Assessment
Concerning recommendation A. - "clarifying (i) whether Frontex considers itself responsible for fundamental rights breaches within its activities and, if so, under which terms; and (ii) in the Code of Conduct, the legal framework applicable to the conduct of all participants in Frontex operations (point 61 of the Ombudsman's assessment)"

Frontex's stance

87. Frontex recalled that, according to Article 1 of the Frontex Regulation, its mandate is to facilitate and render more effective the application of Union measures related to the management of external borders by ensuring the coordination of actions of the Member States and contributing to an efficient, uniform and high level of control on persons and of surveillance of external borders. Frontex is obliged to respect and promote fundamental rights in its coordinated activities in compliance with EU law, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as international law.

88. Frontex equally recalled that its mandate is limited to a practical supporting role, with the responsibility for the control and surveillance of external borders lying with the Member States. While Frontex has responsibility for the actions defined by its mandate, it cannot be held answerable for the Member States' sovereign actions, as clearly defined by the legislator.

89. At the same time, Frontex argued that it is fully aware of the rationale underlying the amendment of the Frontex Regulation in 2011 and aims at increasing the Agency's responsibility in particular in areas where Frontex could have knowledge of potential fundamental rights violations. In this regard, it recognised that it was given new instruments to react to possible fundamental rights violations during joint operations, for instance, through the possibility of the Coordinating Officer expressing his or her views on the instructions given to the members of EGBTs by the host Member State which includes raising perceived violations of fundamental rights. Frontex added that it may terminate a joint operations when, according to its assessment, the conditions for such operations are no longer fulfilled. Moreover, the Executive Director has the obligation to suspend or terminate joint operations if he considers that violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations are serious and persistent.

90. Frontex specified that it aims to prevent violations of fundamental rights through a number of tools, namely, (i) the harmonisation of fundamental rights training in the Member States; (ii) the establishment of a monitoring and reporting system for possible violations of fundamental rights; (iii) the mainstreaming of fundamental rights in its activities; (iv) the promotion of swift processing of potential complaints lodged by migrants with the respective Member States authorities in the course of joint operations; and (v) serving as the custodian of best practices.

91. Turning to the legal framework applicable to the conduct of participants in operations coordinated by it, Frontex recalled that Article 10(3) of the Frontex Regulation provides that the guest officers act under instructions of the host Member State, while they remain subject to disciplinary measures of their home Member States, including in cases of violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations. Frontex emphasised that all participants in operational activities coordinated by it receive training in EU and international law, including fundamental rights and access to international protection, as well as briefings concerning the particular operational area and applicable law. They are also informed about their duty to comply with the applicable law and the Operational Plan. Lastly, they are subject to the professional values, ethical principles and rules laid down in the Code of Conduct. Frontex added that "humanity" is one of its core values with concrete implications on the activities of the Agency, given that it serves as a guiding principle on best conduct in case of doubt.

92. Frontex emphasised that significant work had been done, both before and after the amendment of the Frontex Regulation, in order to ensure respect of fundamental rights within Frontex's mandate. In the given context, Frontex also referred to the drafting of the Strategy and the Action Plan as well as to the taking up of duties of the FRO and the CF. Frontex underlined that respect for and promotion of fundamental rights are a continued concern for it and the relevant Member States authorities and pledged its continuing efforts in this regard.

93. Lastly, Frontex pointed out that it is aware of potential gaps concerning the clarification of responsibilities between the numerous different actors and declared its intention to endeavour "to bring more clarity, at practitioner's level, within the limits of its mandate". The Agency added that further revision of the Strategy will consider the Ombudsman's suggestions.

The Ombudsman's assessment

94. The Ombudsman welcomes Frontex's clarifications as regards the extent of its responsibility as well as the applicable legal framework. Frontex's readiness to bring more clarity to its mandate and to make the relevant amendments to the Strategy is particularly important.


Case closed - deficiencies addressed.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: Recommendations for Frontex to address deficiencies.

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Tue May 03, 2016 3:14 pm

I think there was a follow up done in 2014, but I can't find it yet.

Continuing with the 2012:

Concerning recommendation J. - "providing concrete guidance as regards the actual meaning of formulations such as "if the conditions to conduct those joint operations or pilot projects are no longer fulfilled" and violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations which "are of a serious nature or are likely to persist" (point 76 of the Ombudsman's assessment)"

Frontex's stance

128. The assessment of the nature of the violation, its seriousness and persistence can only be done on a case-by-case basis. This assessment is based on a prior examination by different designated Frontex entities, including a separate and independent assessment by the FRO. Contributions are enclosed in a report submitted to the Executive Director for his final decision in this regard.

129. Frontex is currently assessing whether further guidance or indicators are necessary.

130. Frontex also pointed out that the wording referred to by the Ombudsman has been adopted by EU legislator after detailed debates and careful considerations.

The Ombudsman's assessment

131. The idea underlying this recommendation was for Frontex to provide further guidance on its interpretation of criteria contained in the legal rules which have undoubtedly been laid down by the legislator. The Ombudsman still believes that, for the reasons explained in the draft recommendation, further guidance is necessary. In this regard, she takes note of the fact that Frontex is currently assessing whether further guidance or indicators are necessary and trusts that Frontex will take further steps, as appropriate.


Scope for improvement.
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: Recommendations for Frontex to address deficiencies.

Postby supporttheunderdog » Tue May 03, 2016 3:23 pm

GreekIslandGirl wrote:I think there was a follow up done in 2014, but I can't find it yet.

Continuing with the 2012:

Concerning recommendation J. - "providing concrete guidance as regards the actual meaning of formulations such as "if the conditions to conduct those joint operations or pilot projects are no longer fulfilled" and violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations which "are of a serious nature or are likely to persist" (point 76 of the Ombudsman's assessment)"

Frontex's stance

128. The assessment of the nature of the violation, its seriousness and persistence can only be done on a case-by-case basis. This assessment is based on a prior examination by different designated Frontex entities, including a separate and independent assessment by the FRO. Contributions are enclosed in a report submitted to the Executive Director for his final decision in this regard.

129. Frontex is currently assessing whether further guidance or indicators are necessary.

130. Frontex also pointed out that the wording referred to by the Ombudsman has been adopted by EU legislator after detailed debates and careful considerations.

The Ombudsman's assessment

131. The idea underlying this recommendation was for Frontex to provide further guidance on its interpretation of criteria contained in the legal rules which have undoubtedly been laid down by the legislator. The Ombudsman still believes that, for the reasons explained in the draft recommendation, further guidance is necessary. In this regard, she takes note of the fact that Frontex is currently assessing whether further guidance or indicators are necessary and trusts that Frontex will take further steps, as appropriate.


Scope for improvement.


Indeed though:
F. Conclusions Go to the top of the page

The Ombudsman closes the own-initiative inquiry with the following conclusions:

Frontex has adequately addressed the Ombudsman's recommendations A-L.

As regards recommendation M, the Ombudsman made a special report to Parliament.

Frontex will be informed of this decision.


I would like to see what was submitted regarding item M - I think it is here

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0422+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: Recommendations for Frontex to address deficiencies.

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Tue May 03, 2016 4:06 pm

I can't find that special report - lack of transparency and accountability seem to be the major applied problems with the old Frontex - as opposed to the practical problems, which could be forgiven through their lack of funds and other member-state non-participations.

Anyway, have just found something that says the new EU Border and Coast Guard Agency won't be “operational” till September and not “fully functional” till November. It will then take a month or two for Schengen to return to “normal” if the situation allows.

Bit slow.... :roll:

Maybe that's what NATO is providing the extra support for - till the EU have their border management completely sorted.
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: Recommendations for Frontex to address deficiencies.

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sun May 22, 2016 9:51 am

supporttheunderdog wrote:
An evaluation of the application of the Schengen rules in the field of external border management by Greece was carried out in November 2015. The Evaluation Report, which revealed serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control by Greece, was adopted by the Commission on 2 February 2016. Recommendations for remedial action were adopted by the Council on 12 February 2016.
As the Evaluation Report found serious deficiencies, the Commission adopted on 24 February 2016 an implementing decision setting out recommendations on specific measures to be taken by Greece. The recommendations seek to ensure that Greece applies all Schengen rules related to management of the external border.


In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/20131 and the annual evaluation programme for 2015 , an unannounced on-site visit was carried out from 10 to 13 November 2015 to evaluate the implementation of the Schengen acquis in the field of the management of the external border by the Hellenic Republic at its land border (Orestiada, Fylakio, Kastanies, Nea Vyssa) and sea border (Chios and Samos Islands) with Turkey.

On 2 February 2016 the Commission adopted an implementing decision establishing a report of the evaluation of the Hellenic Republic on the implementation of the Schengen acquis in the field of the management of the external border concluding that there are serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control that must be overcome and dealt with by the Hellenic authorities. These serious deficiencies represent, as far as the carrying out of external border control is concerned, a situation where the obligations referred to in Article 16(1) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 have not been met.


The national border management system of the Hellenic Republic presently does not yet have the required operational and administrative capacities to manage external borders according to the standards of the Schengen Borders Code, although work is in progress to establish these capacities. In particular, some core functions, e.g. risk analysis, are presently not implemented in full and the approach to border management is fragmented. Not all the national capacities suitable for border surveillance (Army, Navy) are fully used by the Hellenic Republic.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Previous

Return to Cyprus and the European Union

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests