16 Amendments of Roberta METSOLA related to 2018/2062(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2017 on the fight against cybercrime (2017/268(INI));
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
- having regard to Commission Decision 2011/61/EU of 31 January 2011 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the State of Israel with regard to automated processing of personal data6a; _________________ 6a OJ L 27, 1.2.2011, p. 39
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the Europol programming document 2018-20207a highlights the increasing relevance of an enhanced multi-disciplinary approach, including the pooling of necessary expertise and information from an expanding range of partners, for the delivery of Europol's mission; _________________ 7a Europol Programming Document 2018- 2020 adopted by Europol's Management Board on 30 November 2017, EDOC# 856927v18.
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas the Europol External Strategy 2017-20208a underlines the need for closer cooperation between Europol and the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) in light of the current terrorist threats as well as migration-related challenges; _________________ 8aEuropol External Strategy 2017-2020, adopted by the Europol Management Board on 13 December 2016, EDOC#865852v3.
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
C c. whereas Parliament underlined in its 2017 Resolution on the Fight against cybercrime (2017/268(INI)) that strategic and operational cooperation agreements between Europol and third countries facilitate both the exchange of information and practical cooperation in the fight against cybercrime;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas the State of Israel was included in the list of third states and organisations set out in Council Decision 2009/935/JHA of 30 November 2009 with which Europol should conclude agreements; whereas negotiations on an operational cooperation agreement had been launched in 2010 but were not concluded before the entry into force of the Europol Regulation ((EU) 2016/794)) on 1 May 2017;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that cooperation with the State of Israel in the field of law enforcement may beis necessary for the European Union’s security interests but highlights that due caution is needed while, in particular given the great level of expertise the Israeli authorities have in fighting terrorism and in investigating as well as dealing with high-tech cybercrime; highlights the need to apply due diligence when defining the negotiating mandate for an agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the Israeli authorities for fighting serious crime and terrorism;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Insists that the level of protection resulting from the agreement should be essentially equivalent to the level of protection in EU law; welcomes, in this context, the formal recognition of Israel as a country providing an adequate level of data protection by the Commission in 2011; recalls that this decision was based, inter alia, on available administrative and judicial remedies to guarantee the application of the data protection standards as well as the existence of an independent supervisory authority (the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority (ILITA)) invested with powers of investigation and intervention;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the categories of offences for which personal data will be exchanged need to be clearly defined and listed in the international agreement itself, in line with EU criminal offences definitions when available; this list should include the activities covered by such crimes, and the persons, groups and organisations likely to be affected by the transferlikely effects of the transfer of personal data;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Urges the Council and the Commission to define, pursuant to Court of Justice (CJEU) case-law and within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the Charter, with the Government of the State of Israel, which independent supervisory authority is to be in charge of supervising the implementation of the international agreement; is of the opinion that such an authority should be agreed and established before the international agreement can enter into force; insists that the name of this authority and the contact details be expressly included in the agreement;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the independent supervisory body should also be competent to decideit should be possible for either one of the contracting parties to suspend or terminate the agreement in the event of a breach of the agreement; considers that any personal data falling within the scope of the agreement transferred prior to its suspension or termination may continue to be processed in accordance with the agreement;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that a clear definition of the concept of individual cases is needed as this concept is needed to assess the necessity and proportionality of data transfers; highlights that this definition should only refer to actual criminal investigations and not to criminal intelligence operations targeting specific individuals considered as suspects;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that data transferred to a receiving authority can never be further processed by other authorities and that, to this end, an exhaustive list of the competent authorities in the State of Israel to which Europol can transfer data should be set up, including a description of the authorities’ competences; considers that any changemodification to such a list that would replace or add a new competent authority would require a review of the international agreement;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that the transfer of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data or data concerning a person’s health and sex life is extremely sensitive and gives rise to profound concerns given the different legal framework, societal characteristics and cultural background of the State of Israel compared with the European Union; highlights the fact that criminal acts are defined differently in the Union from in the State of Israel; is of the opinion that such a transfer of data should therefore only take place in very exceptional cases and with clear safeguards for the data subject and persons linked to the data subject; Considers it necessary to impose safeguards on the State of Israel as regardsdefine specific safeguards that would need to be respected by the State of Israel as regards fundamental rights, including the respect for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and human dignity and so forth;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Believes that a monitoring mechanism should be included in the agreement and it should be made subject to periodic assessments to evaluate its functioning in relation to the operational needs of Europol as well as its compliance with European data protection rights and principles;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Calls on the Commission to keep its competent committee informed about the progress of negotiations on the international agreement;