Supplementary written evidence by Frontex
1. STAFFING QUESTION
The Earl of Listowel asked whether the staffing
difficulties referred to by the Executive Director in oral evidence
had had a knock-on effect within Frontex headquarters in terms
of the quality of management, mentoring and supervision. The short
answer is that there has been no perceived diminution in the management
functions of the Agency due to a large extent to the excellent
quality and pioneering spirit of the original staff, including
managers, posted to Warsaw in October 2005. This pioneering spirit
of the staff was a positive aspect referred to by the Executive
Director in his oral evidence.
The Earl of Listowel also asked for details
of retention and sick rates as possible indicators of motivation
and morale of the Frontex staff. The following statistics are
available:
(i) No of resignations from offered
positions (interviewed and offered jobs)
During the period 2006-2007, 28% of candidates
offered a job in Frontex resigned. Among them 8% were Poles and
20% were foreigners. The high percentage of resignations among
Contract Agents (CAs) in 2007 (50%) may be due to the fact that
employees working under this type of contract are not well paid
compared to Temporary Agents (TAs). Moreover, the contracts for
TAs are of 3 years duration with 9 months probationary period,
whilst TAs are offered 5 year contracts with a 6 months probationary
period.
| Year | No of posts to be
occupied
| Resignations
Polish
nationalities
| Resignations
expats |
| 2006 | | |
|
| Resignations from offered posts | 8%
| 4% | 4% |
2007 | |
| |
| Resignations from offered CA posts | 50%
| 19% | 31% |
| Resignations from offered TA posts | 13%
| 0% | 13% |
| Resignations from offered posts (TA and CA) in 2007
| 28% | 8% | 20%
|
| | |
|
(ii) Frontex staff—average number of days
on sick leave per person
Average number of days on sick leave per person for the last
two years did not exceed 1.7 day per person. Excluded are two
persons who were seriously sick during that period.
| Average Number of Days on Sick Leave per Person
|
| X-XII 2005 | 0.32 |
| 2006 | 1.63 |
| I-IX 2007 | 1.05 |
| |
(iii) Retention of Frontex staff
For the period of 2006 and 2007 the retention rate was always
higher than 92% (table prepared for Seconded National Experts
and other staff separately)
|
| Type of agent | Retention rate
|
|
| TA, CA, AUX 2006 | 97% |
| TA, CA, AUX 2007 | 98% |
| SNE 2006 | 92% |
| SNE 2007 | 97% |
| Total | 96% |
|
| |
TA = temporary agent; CA = contract agent; AUX = auxiliary
staff; SNE = seconded national expert
2. RABIT QUESTION
Lord Jopling sought details of the first RABIT exercise.
The first RABIT exercise took place between 5 and 9 November 2007
at Sa Carneiro airport, Porto, Portugal comprising a total of
16 border guards from 16 Member States divided into three teams.
The main objectives of the exercise were:
— to test the new mechanism in real circumstances;
— to test the administrative procedures necessary
for deployment within the time limits mentioned in the RABIT Regulation
(in close cooperation with host and all other participating Member
States);
— to deal with operational challenges (national
expert pools, list of permissible weapons, databases, etc.) and
open questions in advance of real missions; and
— to further develop the management of RABITs within
Frontex.
3. NUMBER OF
STAFF EMPLOYED
IN THE
TRAINING UNIT
The Executive Director undertook to provide the exact number
of staff currently working in the Training Unit at Frontex Headquarters.
The figure is 9.
4. UK POSITION IN
RELATION TO
ITS PARTICIPATION
IN FRONTEX
ACTIVITIES
A number of members of the Committee indicated that they
would welcome further written details concerning the current UK
position in general and comments on possible Frontex participation
in the Olympics 2012 in particular.
In respect of the UK position, the Advocate General (AG)
in Case C-77/05, UK v. Council, has concluded on 10 July
2007 that the Frontex Regulation is a measure relating to the
external borders and closely linked to the abolition of internal
borders, an area in which the UK does not participate. Therefore,
the UK cannot have a right to fully participate in the Frontex
Regulation and in the activities of Frontex. The Advocate General
advises the Court to dismiss the UK application and to conclude
that the Frontex Regulation does not apply to the UK in the way
that the UK argues.
There is no legal obligation for the Court to follow the
advice of the Advocate General. The Court, nevertheless, often
follows the advice of the Advocate General, but this is not automatic.
The final Court ruling is still likely to take another couple
of months.
Frontex has received signals from the UK that a Court ruling
following the AG's opinion could have implication for the way
in which that Member State wishes to participate within the framework
of Frontex activities.
As an important consequence, a Court ruling upholding the
UK's exclusion from Frontex would confirm also the UK's exclusion
from Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 (the RABIT Regulation).
The amendments to the Frontex Regulation by Regulation (EC)
No 863/2007 also have importance consequences for the UK's participation
in Frontex activities. Both RABIT team members and guest officers
in Frontex activities have now been endowed with certain tasks
and executive powers, which would not be available to participating
UK border guards. Furthermore, the questions related to possible
liabilities of the UK border guards participating in Frontex operations,
both in RABIT teams and in joint operations/pilot projects, would
be unclear.
The main practical implication of the UK not being able to
participate fully in the Frontex Regulation and in its activities
is that operations and projects mounted by the Agency cannot,
as a rule, take place within UK territory. Operations that do
take place within the UK, therefore, must be construed as separate
UK operations, albeit it is possible for them to be planned, organised
and executed in parallel with the respective Frontex operations.
In this case, Frontex can facilitate cooperation and coordination
of two such different operations. Frontex cannot, however, finance
and reimburse the costs of activities that take place within the
territory of the UK or Ireland and which are part of such separate
operations.
It is open to Frontex to propose the participation of the
UK in Frontex operations, ie operations where UK officers or assets
would be deployed in Frontex operations taking place within the
Schengen territory or at its borders. For each operation where
UK participation is proposed, the operational plan must set out
justification as to how such participation would contribute to
the success of the activity concerned, and the Management Board
of Frontex must give its acceptance on a case-by-case basis by
simplified written procedure under Article 20(5) of the Regulation.
Where the proposed participation is approved, the UK has the right
to be reimbursed for its costs in accordance with normal Frontex
rules and practices.
In respect of the specific question as to whether Frontex
could become involved in the Olympics 2012 being hosted in London,
on the assumption that available intelligence nearer the time
shows a need for such an EU-wide operation and given that the
current UK position remains the same, it is probable that the
type of parallel joint operations, mounted in both Schengen and
non-Schengen territory/borders (described above), would be an
appropriate solution.
It is desirable that the UK would be willing to continue
supporting Frontex activities in different forms. Over the last
two years it has played an active role in Frontex' activities
and has contributed financially to these activities. It has also
committed various items of technical equipment—three heartbeat
detectors, 12 CO2 probes and one Passive Millimeter Wave Imager
(PMMWI)—to the Central Record of Available Technical Equipment
(CRATE), which are at the disposal of Frontex for its joint operations.
In view of Article 12 of the Frontex regulation, which states
that the Agency shall facilitate operational cooperation of the
Member States with Ireland and the United Kingdom, and in view
of the Council declaration inviting Frontex to explore ways in
which the United Kingdom can practically support the operations
of Rapid Border Intervention Teams, Frontex remains ready to accommodate
any possible participation of the UK as well as Ireland.
Compiled by Graham Leese and approved by Ilkka Laitinen, Executive
Director
12 November 2007
| 
