[ParlTrack]

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Marju LAURISTIN, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)

Ad. whereas promoting social justice and protection, as defined in Article 3 TEU and Article 9 TFEU, are also objectives of the EU internal market;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

-1a. Notes that there is no common definition of the digital economy based on online platforms ('platform economy', 'collaborative economy', 'sharing economy' etc.); points out that the use of the terminology 'platform economy' seems to be the most objective description and calls on the Commission to ensure the usage of coherent terminology;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need for a clear distinction between ~~‘profession~~'commercial’' and ‘'non-~~professional’ platforms and~~commercial' platforms as well as between professional and occasional users/workers; underlines the importance to recognise remunerated activities in the platform economy that are properly categorised as ‘'work’' regardless of the terminology ('gigs', 'tasks', 'giving rides' etc.);

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that all workers in the platform economy are either employed or self-employed based on the primacy of facts; re~~calls in~~gardless of how thise context that the Court of Justice has defined the concept of ‘worker’ on the basis of an employment relationship characterised by certain criteria such as subordination, remuneration and the nature of workractual relationship is defined; highlights that all work in the platform economy should be classified accordingly;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Takes note of the Commission's communication on 'A European Agenda for the collaborative economy' which provides amongst others indicators for employment relationships in the digital labour market; recalls in this context that the European Court of Justice has defined the concept of 'worker' on the basis of an employment relationship characterised by certain criteria such as subordination, remuneration and the nature of work; considers the approach by the Commission insufficient to provide adequate protection to workers in the platform economy and calls for decisive steps to ensure legal certainty on what constitutes 'employment' for work intermediated by online platforms, taking into account the ILO Recommendation No 198 regarding the determination of an employment relationship;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase its efforts to tackle bogus self-employment; notes that there are cases where self-employed platform workers meet the ECJ criteria defining an employment relationship, and which should therefore be classified as employees; calls on the Commission and the Member States to work towards a common definition of self-employed which also applies to the platform economy;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Call~~Reiterates its call in the framework of the European Pillar of Social Rights for a framework directive on decent working conditions including in the platform economy, in order to ~~guarante~~define the legal situation of platform workers and to ensure, in line with national law and practice, that all platform workers have the same social and employment rights ands well as health and safety protection as workers in the traditional economy; underlines the importance of such a directive, taking into account the mobility and delocalisation of digital work, with regard to the creation of a level playing field;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Underlines the need~~Calls on the Member States to ensure adequate social security for self- employed workers, who are key players in the digital labour market; ~~stresses that freedom of association and collective action are fundamental rights which must apply to all workers;~~

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls fon the Commission and the Member States to gather more reliable data on jobs and working conditions in the platform economy ~~and for the adjustment of related policies to create a level playing field between the platform and traditional economie~~; calls on the Commission, the Member States and social partners to provide adequate information to workers on working conditions and workers' rights throughout the supply-chain of online platforms;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that possible efficiency advantages of the online platforms over the traditional economy should not rely on wage dumping and unfair competition; calls therefore for the adjustment of related policies to create a level playing field between the platform and traditional economies;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Recalls that online platforms must comply with pertinent labour-law provisions including working time and occupational health;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that all mandatory contributions are paid for all forms of work and examine to what extent social security systems have to be adjusted to provide appropriate protection for platform workers; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the portability and accumulation of social security entitlements;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. Calls on the Commission to examine in how far existing EU regulations are applicable to the digital labour market and ensure the adequate implementation and enforcement; calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess the need for the modernisation of existing legislation to stay abreast of such changes and to encourage social partners to update collective agreements where necessary so that existing protection standards can also be maintained in the digital world of work;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 g (new)

5g. Stresses that the socially and environmentally sustainable online platforms organized on cooperative basis should be promoted and supported;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 i (new)

5i. Points out that as job and skills profiles become more complex, new demands – especially regarding information and communications technology (ICT) skills – are being placed on training as well as on further education and life-long learning to promote digital literacy and to tackle the existing gender and generational gaps, especially for disadvantaged persons in this context; emphasises the importance of stronger synergies involving the social partners and various educational and training institutions in order to bring teaching and studies' contents up to date and develop skills strategies linking the world of education with the world of work;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 j (new)

5j. Insists that public investment in vocational education and lifelong learning is necessary in order to ensure that the EU workforce, is equipped with the right skills for the digital age; stresses that education and training must be accessible for all workers; believes that new funding opportunities for lifelong learning and training are needed, especially for micro and small enterprises;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the need to ensure the portability of ratings of platform workers which constitute their digital market value and are important to avoid dependency of workers on certain platforms since ratings are important determinants in the allocation of tasks; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the transferability and accumulation of ratings across platforms;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Seeks the Commission and the Member States in collaboration with the social partners to ensure that workers and users are able to rate online platforms;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6e. Believes that the effects of digitalisation on health and safety at work need to be assessed and existing health and safety provisions adapted accordingly;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that ~~constant accessibility~~work-related mental health problems such as burnout or depressions caused by constant accessibility, the erosion of traditional working time arrangements and social isolation represents a serious health and safety risk in the platform economy; advocates therefore full compliance with the prescribed rest times and stresses the need to respect working time arrangements in order to maintain the boundaries of working time as defined by the labour laws of the individual Member States; advocates the establishment of a ‘'right to log off’. ' for worker outside the agreed working hours;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/2003(INI)

Joachim SCHUSTER, Brando BENIFEI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Jutta STEINRUCK, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Marju LAURISTIN, Georgi PIRINSKI, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to produce a study on the spillover effects of digitalisation, on workers' psychological wellbeing and private life;

2017/02/03
Committee: EMPL

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) The prohibition of storage of communications is not intended to prohibit any automatic, intermediate and transient storage of this information insofar as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the electronic communications network. It should not prohibit either the processing of electronic communications data to ensure the security and continuity of the electronic communications services, including. It should not prohibit the processing of electronic communications data by public authorities, computer emergency response teams (CERTs), computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs), providers of electronic communications networks and services and by certified providers of security technologies and services, in compliance with Regulation 2016/679 and to the extent strictly necessary and proportionate for the sole purposes of ensuring network and information security, i.e. preservation of availability, integrity and confidentiality of information, and ensuring the security of the related services offered by, or accessible via, those networks and systems. This could, for example, include preventing unauthorised access to electronic communications networks and malicious code distribution and stopping ‘denial of service’ attacks and damage to computer and electronic communication systems, checking security threats such as the presence of malware, spam or to check against DDoS attacks, or the processing of metadata to ensure the necessary quality of service requirements, such as latency, jitter etc.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30

(30) Publicly available directories of end-users of electronic communications services are widely distributed. Publicly available directories means any directory or service containing end-users information such as phone numbers (including mobile phone numbers), email address contact details and includes inquiry services. The right to privacy and to protection of the personal data of a natural person requires that ~~end-~~users ~~that are natural persons~~ are asked for consent before their personal data are included in a directory. The legitimate interest of legal entities requires that end- users ~~that are legal entities~~ have the right to object to the data related to them being included in a directory. Natural persons who act with commercial intent, such as freelancers, small traders or self- employed persons, should be equated to legal persons.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) If ~~end-users that are natural person~~users give their consent to their data being included in such directories, they should be able to determine on a consent basis which categories of personal data are included in the directory (for example name, e-mail address, home address, user name, phone number). In addition, providers of publicly available directories or the electronic communication service providers should inform the end-users of the purposes of the directory and of the search functions of the directory before including them in that directory. ~~End-u~~Users should be able to determine by consent on the basis of which categories of personal data their contact details can be searched. The categories of personal data included in the directory and the categories of personal data on the basis of which the ~~end-~~user’s contact details can be searched should not necessarily be the same.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, neither providers of the electronic communications services, nor any other party, shall process electronic communications data collected on the basis of this Regulation, for further processing.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) if it is technically necessary for web audience measuring of the information society service requested by the user, provided that such measurement is carried out by the provider ~~of the information society service requested by the end-~~, or on behalf of the provider, or by an independent web analytics organization acting in the public interest or for statistical or scientific purpose; and further provided that no personal data is made accessible to any other party and that such web audience measurement does not adversely affect the fundamental rights of the user.;

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Software placed on the market permitting electronic communications, including the retrieval and presentation of information on the internet, shall ~~offer the option to prevent third parties from storing information on the terminal equipment of an end-user or processing information already stored on that equipment.~~:

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)

(a) by default, offer privacy protective settings to prevent other parties from storing information on the terminal equipment of a user and from processing information already stored on that equipment, except for the purposes laid down by Article 8 paragraph (1), points (a), (c) and (d);

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)

(b) offer the option to prevent other parties from processing information already stored on the terminal equipment for the purposes laid down by Article 8, paragraph (1), points (a), (c) and (d).

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c (new)

(c) upon installation, inform and offer the user the possibility to change or confirm the privacy settings options defined in point (a) by requiring the user's consent to a setting;

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d (new)

(d) make the setting defined in points (a) and (c) easily accessible during the use of the software;and

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e (new)

(e) offer the user the possibility to express specific consent through the settings after the installation of the software.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. For the purpose of point (e) of paragraph 1, the settings shall include a signal which is sent to the other parties to inform them about the user's privacy settings.These settings shall be binding on, and enforceable against, any other party.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

~~2. Upon installation, the software shall inform the end-user about the privacy settings options and, to continue with the installation, require the end-user to consent to a setting.~~deleted

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. The providers of publicly available directories or the electronic communication services providers shall obtain the consent of ~~end-~~ users ~~who are natural persons~~ to include their personal data in the directory and, consequently, shall obtain consent from these ~~end-~~users for inclusion of data per category of personal data, to the extent that such data are relevant for the purpose of the directory ~~as determined by the provider of the directory. P~~. Electronic communication service providers shall give ~~end-~~users ~~who are natural persons the means to verify, correct and delete such data~~the means to verify, correct, update, complete and delete such data. When electronic communication service providers obtain consent of users, they shall make users' data available for public directory providers in an immediate, non- discriminatory and fair manner.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2

2. The providers of a publicly available directoryies shall inform ~~end-users who are natural person~~users whose personal data are in the directory of the available search functions of the directory ~~and obtain end-users’ consent before enabling such search functions related to their own data~~. The electronic communication service providers shall inform users if new search functions are enabled.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~providers of publicly available directorie~~electronic communication service providers shall provide end-users that are legal persons with the possibility to object to data related to them being included in the directory. Electronic communication service Providers shall give such end-users that are legal persons the means to verify, correct and delete such data. Users who act with commercial intent shall be equated to legal persons.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Where the personal data of the users of number- based interpersonal communications services have been included in a publicly available directory before this Regulation enters into force, the personal data of such users may remain included in a publicly available directory, including versions with search functions, unless the users have expressed their objection against their data being included in the directory or against available search functions related to their data.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1

1. NThe use by natural or legal persons ~~may use~~of electronic communications services, including automated calling, communications systems, semi-automated systems that connect the call person to an individual, faxes, e-mail or other use of electronic communications services for the purposes of presendting unsolicited or direct marketing communications to end- users ~~who are natural persons that~~, shall be allowed only in respect of end-users who have given their prior consent.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0003(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4

4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may provide by law that the placing of direct marketing voice-to-voice calls to end-users who are natural persons shall only be allowed in respect of end- users who are natural persons who have not expressed their objection to receiving those communications. Member States shall provide that users can object to receiving the direct marketing voice-to-voice calls via a national Do Not Call Register, thereby also ensuring that the user needs to opt- out only once.

2017/07/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)

(7a) The data protection legal framework for processing in the course of activities of Union institutions and bodies which fall outside the scope of Community law remains fragmented and creates legal uncertainty. This Regulation should therefore provide for harmonised rules for the protection and the free movement of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU and Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In Declaration No 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the conference acknowledged that specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation based on Article 16 TFEU could prove necessary because of the specific nature of those fields. This Regulation should therefore apply to Union agencies carrying out activities in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation only to the extent that Union law applicable to such agencies does not contain specific rules on the processing of personal dataFurthermore, the field of common foreign and security policy also has a specific nature and specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of personal data could prove necessary as well. It is therefore appropriate to regulate the processing of operational personal data by Union agencies established on the basis of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU and by missions referred to in Article 42(1), 43 and 44 of the TEU by specific rules, derogating from a number of general rules of this Regulation. Those specific rules are aligned with the provisions of the Directive (EU) 2016/680 and should be interpreted homogenously.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) The Union law ~~including the internal rules~~ referred to in this Regulation should be clear and precise and its application should be foreseeable to persons subject to it, in accordance with the ~~case-law of the Court of Justice of~~requirements set out in the Charter and the European UnConvention ~~and~~for the ~~European Court~~Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) The internal rules referred to in this Regulation should be clear and precise acts of general application intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis data subjects, adopted at the highest level of management of the Union institutions and bodies within their competencies and in matters relating to their operation and should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The application of these rules should be foreseeable to persons subject to them in accordance with the requirements set out in the Charter and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms. Internal rules may take the form of decisions, in particular when adopted by Union institutions.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) The processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes should be subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject pursuant to this Regulation. Those safeguards should ensure that technical and organisational measures are in place in order to ensure, in particular, the principle of data minimisation. The further processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes is to be carried out when the controller has assessed the feasibility to fulfil those purposes by processing data which do not permit or no longer permit the identification of data subjects, provided that appropriate safeguards exist (such as, for instance, pseudonymisation of the data). Union institutions and bodies should provide for appropriate safeguards for the processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in Union law, which may include internal rules adopted by Union institutions and bodies in matters relating to their operation.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 – paragraph 1

Legal acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties or internal rules ofadopted by Union institutions and bodies, in matters relating to their operation, may impose restrictions concerning specific principles and the rights of information, access to and rectification or erasure of personal data, the right to data portability, confidentiality of electronic communications as well as the communication of a personal data breach to a data subject and certain related obligations of the controllers, as far as necessary and proportionate in a democratic society to safeguard public security, the prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, including the protection of human life especially in response to natural or manmade disasters, internal security of Union institutions and bodies, other important objectives of general public interest of the Union or of a Member State, in particular an important economic or financial interest of the Union or of a Member State, the keeping of public registers kept for reasons of general public interest or the protection of the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others, including social protection, public health and humanitarian purposes.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49

(49) The European Data Protection Supervisor should be informed about administrative measures and consulted on internal rules ofadopted by Union institutions and bodies, in matters relating to their operation, which provide for the processing of personal data, lay down conditions for restrictions of data subject rights or provide appropriate safeguards for data subject rights, in order to ensure compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and in particular to mitigate the risk involved for the data subject.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65

(65) In certain instances, Union law provides for a model of coordinated supervision, shared between the European Data Protection Supervisor and the national supervisory authorities. Moreover, the European Data Protection Supervisor is the supervisory authority of Europol and a specific model of cooperation with the national supervisory authorities is established through a cooperation board with an advisory function. In order to improve the effective supervision and enforcement of substantive data protection rules, ~~a single, coherent model of coordinated supervis~~this Regulation should be introduce~~d in the Union. The Commission should therefor~~ a single, wcohere appropriate, submit legislative proposals with a view to amending Union legal acts providing for a model of coordinated supervision, in order to align them with the coordinated supervision model of this Regulatnt model of coordinated supervision. The European Data Protection Board should serve as a single forum for ensuring the effective coordinated supervision across the board.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)

(da) 'operational personal data' means personal data processed by the Union agencies established on the basis of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU and by the missions referred to in Article 42(1), 43 and 44 of the TEU, for the purposes of meeting the objectives laid down in acts establishing those agencies or missions.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3

3. Where personal data are processed for scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, Union law, which may include internal rules, adopted by Union institutions and bodies in matters relating to their operation, may provide for derogations from the rights referred to in Articles 17, 18, 20 and 23 subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Article 13 in so far as such rights are likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the specific purposes, and such derogations are necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 4

4. Where personal data are processed for archiving purposes in the public interest, Union law, which may include internal rules adopted by Union institutions and bodies in matters relating to their operation, may provide for derogations from the rights referred to in Articles 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Article 13 in so far as such rights are likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the specific purposes, and such derogations are necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 5

5. Internal rules referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 shall be ~~sufficiently clear and precise and subject to appropriate publicat~~clear and precise acts of general application, intended to produce legal effects vis-a-vis data subjects, adopted at the highest level of management of the Union institutions and bodies and subject to publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1

The Union institutions and bodies shall inform the European Data Protection Supervisor when drawing up administrative measures ~~and internal rules~~ relating to the processing of personal data involving a Union institution or body alone or jointly with others.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The Union institutions and bodies shall consult the European Data Protection Supervisor when drawing up the internal rules referred to in Article 25(5).

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 1

1. A transfer of personal data to a third country or international organisation may take place where the Commission has decided pursuant to Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or to Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 that an adequate level of protection is ensured in the third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within that third country, or within the international organisation and the personal data are transferred solely to allow tasks covered by the competence of the controller to be carried out.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 5 a (new)

CHAPTER Va PROCESSING OF OPERATIONAL PERSONAL DATA Article 52a Scope By way of derogation from Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 41, 43, 49, 50 and 51, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to processing of operational data by Union agencies established on the basis of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU and by missions referred to in Article 42(1), 43 and 44 of the TEU. Article 52b Principles relating to processing of personal data 1. Personal data shall be: (a) processed lawfully and fairly ('lawfulness and fairness'); (b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes shall not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes provided that the Union agencies and missions provide appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects ('purpose limitation'); (c) adequate, relevant, and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are processed ('data minimisation'); (d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay ('accuracy'); (e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes provided that the agencies or missions provide appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects, in particular by the implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required by this Regulation ('storage limitation'); (f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures ('integrity and confidentiality'). 2. Processing by Union agencies or missions for any of the purposes of processing personal data laid down in their founding acts other than that for which the personal data are collected shall be permitted in so far as: (a) the Union agencies or missions are authorised to process such personal data for such a purpose in accordance with Union law; and (b) processing is necessary and proportionate to that other purpose in accordance with Union law. Article 52c Lawfulness of processing Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by Union agencies and missions and that it is based on Union law. Union law specifying and complementing this Regulation as regards the processing within the scope of this Chapter shall specify the objectives of processing, the personal data to be processed and the purposes of the processing. Article 52d Distinction between different categories of data subjects Union agencies or missions shall, where applicable and as far as possible, make a clear distinction between personal data of different categories of data subjects, such as: (a) persons with regard to whom there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed or are about to commit a criminal offence; (b) persons convicted of a criminal offence; (c) victims of a criminal offence or persons with regard to whom certain facts give rise to reasons for believing that they could be the victim of a criminal offence; and (d) other parties to a criminal offence, such as persons who might be called on to testify in investigations in connection with criminal offences or subsequent criminal proceedings, persons who can provide information on criminal offences, or contacts or associates of one of the persons referred to in points (a) and (b). Article 52e Distinction between personal data and verification of quality of personal data Union agencies and missions shall distinguish, as far as possible, personal data based on facts from personal data based on personal assessments. Union agencies and missions shall process personal data in such a way that it can be established which authority provided the data or where the data has been retrieved from. Union agencies and missions shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that personal data which are inaccurate, incomplete or no longer up to date are not transmitted or made available. To that end, Union agencies and missions shall, as far as practicable, verify the quality of personal data before they are transmitted or made available. As far as possible, in all transmissions of personal data, Union agencies and missions shall add necessary information enabling the recipient to assess the degree of accuracy, completeness and reliability of personal data, and the extent to which they are up to date shall be added. If it emerges that incorrect personal data have been transmitted or personal data have been unlawfully transmitted, the recipient shall be notified without delay. In such a case, the personal data shall be rectified or erased or processing shall be restricted. Article 52f Specific processing conditions When Union agencies and missions provide for specific conditions for processing, they shall inform the recipient of such personal data of those conditions and the requirement to comply with them. Union agencies and missions shall comply with specific processing conditions for processing provided by a national authority in accordance with Article 9 (3) and (4) of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Article 52g Transmission of personal data to other Union institutions and bodies Union agencies and missions shall only transmit personal data to other Union institutions and bodies if the data are necessary for the legitimate performance of tasks covered by the competence of other Union institutions and bodies. Where personal data are transmitted following a request from the other Union institution or body, both the controller and the recipient shall bear the responsibility for the legitimacy of this transfer. Union agencies and missions shall be required to verify the competence of the other Union institution or body and to make a provisional evaluation of the necessity for the transmission. If doubts arise as to this necessity, Union agencies and missions shall seek further information from the recipient. Other Union institutions and bodies shall ensure that the necessity for the transmission can be subsequently verified. Other Union institutions and bodies shall process the personal data only for the purposes for which they were transmitted. Article 52h Processing of special categories of personal data Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade-union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, personal data concerning health or personal data concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation shall be allowed only where strictly necessary for the performance of tasks of Union agencies and missions, subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject and only if they supplement other operational personal data already processed by Union agencies and missions. The data protection officer shall be informed immediately of recourse to this Article. Article 52i Automated individual decision-making, including profiling The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision of Union agencies and missions based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him/her or similarly significantly affects him/her. Article 52j Information to be made available or given to the data subject 1. Union agencies and missions shall make available to the data subject at least the following information: (a) the identity and the contact details of the Union agency or mission; (b) the contact details of the data protection officer; (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended; (d) the right to lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor and its contact details; (e) the existence of the right to request from Union agencies and missions access to and rectification or erasure of personal data and restriction of processing of the personal data concerning the data subject. 2. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, Union agencies and missions shall give to the data subject, in specific cases, the following further information to enable the exercise of his or her rights: (a) the legal basis for the processing; (b) the period for which the personal data will be stored, or, where that is not possible, the criteria used to determine that period; (c) where applicable, the categories of recipients of the personal data, including in third countries or international organisations; (d) where necessary, further information, in particular where the personal data are collected without the knowledge of the data subject. 3. Union agencies and missions may delay, restrict or omit the provision of the information to the data subject pursuant to paragraph 2 to the extent that, and for as long as, such a measure is provided for by a legal act adopted on the basis of the Treaties or by an internal rule of the Union agency or mission and constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the fundamental rights and the legitimate interests of the natural person concerned, in order to: (a) avoid obstructing official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures; (b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties; (c) protect public security of the Member States; (d) protect national security of the Member States; (e) protect the objectives of the common foreign and security policy of the Union; (f) protect the rights and freedoms of others. Article 52k Right of access by the data subject The data subject shall have the right to obtain from Union agencies and missions confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning that subject are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and the following information: (a) the purposes of and legal basis for the processing; (b) the categories of personal data concerned; (c) the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the personal data have been disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations; (d) where possible, the envisaged period for which the personal data will be stored, or, if not possible, the criteria used to determine that period; (e) the existence of the right to request from Union agencies and missions rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing of personal data concerning the data subject; (f) the right to lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor and his or her contact details; (g) communication of the personal data undergoing processing and of any available information as to their origin. Article 52l Limitations to the right of access 1. Union agencies and missions may restrict, wholly or partly, the data subject's right of access to the extent that, and for as long as, such a partial or complete restriction is provided for by a legal act adopted on the basis of the Treaties or by an internal rule of the Union agency or mission and constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the natural person concerned, in order to: (a) avoid obstructing official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures; (b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties; (c) protect public security of the Member States; (d) protect national security of the Member States; (e) protect the objectives of the common foreign and security policy of the Union; (f) protect the rights and freedoms of others. 2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, Union agencies and missions shall inform the data subject, without undue delay, in writing of any refusal or restriction of access and of the reasons for the refusal or the restriction. Such information may be omitted where the provision thereof would undermine a purpose under paragraph 1. Union agencies and missions shall inform the data subject of the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor or seeking a judicial remedy in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Union agencies and missions shall document the factual or legal reasons on which the decision is based. That information shall be made available to the European Data Protection Supervisor on request. Article 52m Right to rectification or erasure of personal data and restriction of processing 1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from Union agencies and missions without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data relating to that subject. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement. Union agencies and missions shall erase personal data without undue delay and the data subject shall have the right to obtain from Union agencies and missions the erasure of personal data concerning that subject without undue delay where processing infringes Articles 52b, 52c or 52h, or where personal data must be erased in order to comply with a legal obligation to which Union agencies and missions are subject. Instead of erasure, Union agencies and missions shall restrict processing where: (a) the accuracy of the personal data is contested by the data subject and their accuracy or inaccuracy cannot be ascertained; or (b) the personal data must be maintained for the purposes of evidence. 2. Where processing is restricted pursuant to point (a) of the first subparagraph, Union agencies and missions shall inform the data subject before lifting the restriction of processing. 3. Union agencies and missions shall inform the data subject in writing of any refusal of rectification or erasure of personal data or restrict processing and of the reasons for the refusal. Union agencies and missions may restrict, wholly or partly, the obligation to provide such information to the extent that such a restriction constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the natural person concerned in order to: (a) avoid obstructing official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures; (b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties; (c) protect public security of the Member States; (d) protect national security of the Member States; (e) protect the objectives of the common foreign and security policy of the Union; (f) protect the rights and freedoms of others. 4. Union agencies and missions shall inform the data subject of the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor or seeking a judicial remedy from the Court of Justice of the European Union. 5. Union agencies and missions shall communicate the rectification of inaccurate personal data to the competent authority from which the inaccurate personal data originate. Union agencies and missions shall, where personal data has been rectified or erased or processing has been restricted pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, notify the recipients and inform them that they have to rectify or erase the personal data or restrict processing of the personal data under their responsibility. Article 52n Exercise of rights by the data subject and verification by the European Data Protection Supervisor In the cases referred to in Articles 52i(3) , 52k and 52m(4), the rights of the data subject may also be exercised through the European Data Protection Supervisor. Union agencies and missions shall inform the data subject of the possibility of exercising his or her rights through the European Data Protection Supervisor pursuant to paragraph 1.Where the right referred to in paragraph 1 is exercised, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall at least inform the data subject that all necessary verifications or a review by it have taken place. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall also inform the data subject of his or her right to seek a judicial remedy in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Article 52o Logging Union agencies and missions shall keep logs for any of the following processing operations in automated processing systems: collection, alteration, consultation, disclosure including transfers, combination and erasure. The logs of consultation and disclosure shall make it possible to establish the justification for, and the date and time of, such operations, the identification of the person who consulted or disclosed personal data, and, as far as possible, the identity of the recipients of such personal data. The logs shall be used solely for verification of the lawfulness of processing, self-monitoring, ensuring the integrity and security of the personal data, and for criminal proceedings. Such logs shall be deleted after three years, unless they are required for on-going control. Union agencies or missions shall make the logs available to the European Data Protection Supervisor on request. Article 52p Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards 1. In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, Union agencies and missions may transfer personal data to a third country or an international organisation where: (a) appropriate safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data are provided for in a legally binding instrument; or (b) Union agencies and missions have assessed all the circumstances surrounding the transfer of personal data and conclude that appropriate safeguards exist with regard to the protection of personal data. 2. Union agencies and missions shall inform the European Data Protection Supervisor about categories of transfers under point (b) of paragraph 1.When a transfer is based on point (b) of paragraph 1, such a transfer shall be documented and the documentation shall be made available to the European Data Protection Supervisor on request, including the date and time of the transfer, information about the receiving competent authority, the justification for the transfer and the personal data transferred. Article 52q Derogations for specific situations 1. In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, or of appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 52p, Union agencies and missions may transfer personal data to a third country or an international organisation only on the condition that the transfer is necessary: (a) in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person; (b) to safeguard legitimate interests of the data subject; (c) for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to public security of a Member State or a third country; or (d) in individual cases for the performance of the tasks of Union agencies and missions, unless they determine that fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject concerned override the public interest in the transfer. 2. Where a transfer is based on paragraph 1, such a transfer shall be documented and the documentation shall be made available to the European Data Protection Supervisor on request, including the date and time of the transfer, and information about the receiving competent authority, about the justification for the transfer and about the personal data transferred.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – title

Cooperation ~~with~~between the European Data Protection Supervisor and national supervisory authorities

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1

The European Data Protection Supervisor shall cooperate with supervisory authorities established under Article 41 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 51 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 (hereinafter “national supervisory authorities”) ~~and with the joint supervisory authority established under Article 25 of Council Decision 2009/917/JHA21~~ to the extent necessary for the performance of their respective duties, in particular by providing each other with relevant information, requesting ~~national supervisory authorities~~each other to exercise their powers or responding to ~~a request from such authorities. _________________ 21 Council Decision 2009/917/JHA of 30 November 2009 on the use of information technology for customs purposes, OJ L 323, 10.12.2009, p. 20–30~~each other's requests.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1

1. Where a Union act ~~refers to this Article,~~envisages that the European Data Protection Supervisor s~~hall cooper~~upervises the processing of personal datea a~~ctively with the~~t the Union level and national supervisory authorities, supervise the processing o~~rder to ensure effective supervision of large IT systems or Union agencies~~f personal data at national level in a large IT system or a Union body, office or agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the national supervisory authorities, each acting within the scope of their respective competencies, shall cooperate actively in the framework of their responsibilities and shall ensure coordinated supervision.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 2

2. The ~~European Data Protection Supervisor~~y shall, each acting within the scope of its respective competences and in the framework of ~~its~~their responsibilities, exchange relevant information, assist each other in carrying out audits and inspections, examine difficulties of interpretation or application of this Regulation and other applicable Union acts, study problems with the exercise of independent supervision or in the exercise of the rights of data subjects, draw up harmonised proposals for solutions to any problems and promote awareness of data protection rights, as necessary~~, jointly with the national supervisory authorities~~.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 3

3. For the purposes laid down in paragraph 2, the European Data Protection Supervisor ~~shall meet with~~and the national supervisory authorities shall meet at least twice a year within the framework of the European Data Protection Board. The costs and servicing of those meetings shall be borne by the European Data Protection Board. Rules of procedure shall be adopted at the first meeting. Further working methods shall be developed jointlyFor these purposes, the European Data Protection Board may develop further working methods as necessary.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 a (new)

Article 71 a Amendments to SIS II Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and SIS II Council Decision 2007/533/JHA Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Article 62 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) are hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 b (new)

Article 71 b Amendments to VIS Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 Article 43 of Regulation (C) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) is hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 d (new)

Article 71 d Amendments to Customs Information System Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 and Council decision 2009/917/JHA 1. Paragraphs (4) and (5) of Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters are hereby deleted. 2. Articles 25 of paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 26 of Council Decision 2009/917/JHA of 30 November 2009 on the use of information technology for customs purposes are hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 c (new)

Article 71 c Amendments to Internal Market Information System Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 Paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing Commission Decision 2008/49/EC (the IMI Regulation) are hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 f (new)

Article 71 f Amendments to Europol Regulation (EU) 2016/794 Articles 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, and 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing the repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA are hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 g (new)

Article 71 g Amendments to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/XX on EPPO Articles 47, 48(1) and 51 to 89 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/... of implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office ("the EPPO") are hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/0002(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 e (new)

Article 71 e Amendments to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/428 Paragraph 8 of Article 69c of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/428 of 10 March 2015 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and Regulation (EU) No 1063/2010 a regards the rules of origin relating to the scheme of generalised tariff preferences and preferential tariff measures for certain countries or territories is hereby deleted.

2017/07/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission communication on ‘Digitising European Industry’ (COM(2016)0180); recalls the objective of raising the contribution of industry to EU GDP to 20 % by 2020; underlines the important role that digitalisation can play in this context and the urgent need to establish an ambitious EU strategy that coordinates national and regional efforts, avoids fragmentation and maximises opportunities for consumers, workers and businesses;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas an average of 9% of jobs are at high risk of being automated, while for another 25% of jobs half of the tasks will change significantly due to automation

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for adequate investment in research and innovation, infrastructures, cybersecurity and digital skills in order to ensure a well- functioning digital single market where industries can benefit from all its opportunities; stresses also that the EU is lagging behind its competitors in this respect and substantial additional resources are urgently needed for these investments; regrets that the communication fails to meet adequately the challenges ahead in this regard;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Jutta STEINRUCK, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the digitisation of industry represents a major challenge in terms of the organisation of work and therefore requires targeted responses from the Commission and the Member States regarding employment, social and education policies, as well as the provision of up-to-date infrastructure;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Marju LAURISTIN, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Regrets the increasing disparities between regions in industry competitiveness and digitalisation; calls on the European Commission to ensure that cooperation and investments at European level on industry digitalisation lead to progressive convergence between different areas, including through better coordination of existing funds, and to increased opportunities for SMEs' digitalisation;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Maria GRAPINI, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Highlights the risk of shifting of profits from industrial players towards the owners of proprietary digital platforms and of concentration of market into the hands of few actors creating de-facto monopolies, in particular with regard to platforms; considers necessary effective and consistent actions by the competition authorities and, where necessary, legislative initiatives, to ensure fair competition between a plurality of actors, also in the digital environment;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the strong regional differences as regards the digitisation of industry, which have consequences on jobs and growth; calls, therefore, for efforts in developing digital infrastructure to be stepped up, particularly in regions lagging behind, and for universal access to the open internet to be promoted; stresses the importance of networking and cooperation of the already established national digitisation initiatives such as Industrie 4.0, and calls for increased efforts to support regions and sectors currently lacking such initiatives

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in cooperation with social partners, to regularly assess the impact of digitisation on the quality, number and types of jobs and to adjust related policies accordingly; points out that due to the digitisation of industry, the differential between the creation and loss of different types of jobs may have consequences on the financial sustainability of social security schemes, pension systems and unemployment insurance systems of the Member States; recalls that not all future jobs are equally affected by the digitisation of industry and that the importance of human interaction should not be underestimated;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that citizens’ and businesses’ trust in the digital environment is necessary for unlocking the full potential of industry digitalisation; calls on Member States to timely transpose the "NIS Directive" and to engage in effective cooperation in order to guarantee a safe environment in the EU for citizens and businesses; asks a series of new and concrete initiatives to strengthen resilience of businesses, especially SMEs, against cyber-attacks and welcomes the new public-private partnership on cybersecurity recently launched by European Commission;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Believes that digitalisation should provide consumers with more choice, more user-friendly and customised products and more information, in particular on the quality of the products or services, as well as on their social and environmental impacts;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Jutta STEINRUCK, Siôn SIMON, Emilian PAVEL, Flavio ZANONATO, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Stresses that digitisation also offers opportunities to reshore manufacturing; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop reshoring strategies to promote growth and jobs in the Union;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Recalls the risk of digitisation aggravating unequal distribution of wealth in view of a deepening digital divide which could split society, Member States and regions into those who are able to profit from increased digital productivity and those who are not; calls on the Commission and Member States, therefore, to investigate possible ways of reducing inequalities rising through automation;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jutta STEINRUCK, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the opportunities related to the digitisation of industry; stresses, however, that new forms of work must comply with labour and social legislation and guarantee the protection of workers’ and consumer rights; recognises the positive effects digitisation of industry has as it increases flexible working arrangements that can create a better work-life balance, diversify choices through mobile telework, and allow people from rural and secluded areas to join the labour market provided that they are equipped with the necessary infrastructure; emphasises, however, that the digitisation driven trend towards increased flexibility may increase the danger of unstable and precarious employment;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Deems it necessary to ensure the full respect of workers’ and consumers’ right to privacy and to protection of their personal data in the digital environment; emphasises the importance of the correct implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation, ensuring the full application of the principle of ‘privacy by design and by default’; believes that consumers and workers should be in control of the data they produce or that are linked to the products and services they use and should be properly informed about the impact of their decisions over these issues; considers that the issue of worker-related data and their use raises important concerns and should be swiftly clarified; calls on the Commission to define some minimum requirements on this issue; underlines the need to set up an European Directive on Privacy at the workplace;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Marju LAURISTIN, Maria GRAPINI, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls on the European Commission to clarify as soon as possible safety and liability rules for autonomously acting systems (such as vehicles and drones), to ensure fast and effective legal compensation in case of incident and to harmonise the conditions for testing;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Considers interoperability necessary in particular in the domain of Internet of Things to ensure that the development of new technologies improves the opportunities for consumers, who should not be locked-in with certain specific providers; stresses the challenges relating to safety, security and liability with regard to IoT, apps and non- embedded software and calls on the Commission to put forward enhanced efforts on these issues, including in order to raise consumers' awareness and promote a safe use of these instruments;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Urges the Commission to develop comprehensive statistics which complement existing ones, such as the DESI index, in order to better evaluate digitalisation processes in different areas and sectors;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Emilian PAVEL, Flavio ZANONATO, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Expects that digitisation will improve accessibility of social services and other public services for all, including the elderly and people with disabilities;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the very important consequences of industry digitalisation for society, business models, working conditions and jobs demand; regrets the lack of analysis on the part of the Commission of the social effects of the digitisation of industry; calls on the European Commission to carry on an in depth analysis on these issues, focusing also to the consequences of industry digitisation on the number and the quality of jobs, and to present it to the European Parliament by the end of 2017;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. While recognising the opportunities of industry digitalisation, stresses also certain challenges it is posing to job demands, working conditions and workers' rights, in particular in non-standard employment relationships, and highlights the necessity to ensure the full respect of employment rights and adequate social security coverage in the digital world of work; believes it is necessary to involve social partners in the definition of European and national initiative on industry digitalisation; welcomes the proposals to hold high-level roundtables and an European stakeholders forum on digitalisation; believes workers' representatives' involvement to be necessary with regard to companies' decisions over externalisation and digitalisation;

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Kerstin WESTPHAL, Nicola DANTI, Marju LAURISTIN, Maria GRAPINI, Lucy ANDERSON, Marlene MIZZI, Marc TARABELLA, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers it necessary to ensure high-quality education, lifelong learning and vocational training, including in the field of basic and advanced digital qualifications and skills, also to fight digital exclusion, and advocates for the necessary public and private investments; highlights the importance of promoting skills on non-proprietary content; stresses the necessity to work with social partners in order to anticipate skills' need in the long term and welcomes the establishment of the Grand coalition for digital jobs and of other European initiatives in this field; encourages Commission and Member States to ensure mutual recognition of digital qualifications by establishing a European certificate or grading system.

2016/12/16
Committee: IMCO

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes the growth of the platform economy; calls, therefore, for an EU framework on platform work;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that digitisation of industry and the consequent increase in new forms of work will not be detrimental to social contributions and that all contributions will be paid for all forms of work; notes that digital solutions can facilitate the collection of taxes and social security contributions;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Recalls that the European Court of Justice has defined the concept of 'worker' on the basis of an employment relationship characterised by certain criteria, such as subordination, remuneration and the nature of the work; stresses the need for a clear definition of a 'platform worker' in order to ensure compliance with labour and social laws;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5 d. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve the social partners regularly when adapting the regulatory framework for the digital economy; calls on the social partners to conclude collective agreements for the platform economy;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Member States to ensure universal access to training in ~~digital skills~~21st century skills, in particular digital skills, usage of big data, critical thinking, problem solving and teamwork, in order to allow equal participation of all citizens in the digital single market, be it as employees, entrepreneurs or customers; stresses that it is the industry's task to offer suitable training for acquainting their employees properly with new technologies; calls on the Member States to develop skills strategies for the digital age involving social partners as well as education and training institutions, to adapt their educational systems to digitisation and to promote teaching and interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in educational institutions from an early age; stresses that adapting curricula in primary schools can have particular importance in increasing interest in STEM subjects whereby particular efforts must be made to overcome the severe gender gap in the ICT sector; emphasises the importance of lifelong learning for all workers in the digital era; points to the importance of upgrading occupational training programmes for the digital era; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that workers losing their jobs due to digitisation have rapidly access to retraining in digital skills if they so wish;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes that the skills mismatch in the digital economy is not only about lacking skills, but also the result of poor working conditions making some of the best-skilled workers choose to work elsewhere, and of poor management of human resources failing to fully tap into the skills and knowledge of the digital generation;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the need to identify potential occupational health and safety risks stemming from the digitisation of industry and to take appropriate measures.; points to the psychological and neurological effects of digitisation on employees as constant accessibility presents a risk of work-related mental health problems such as burnout; advocates, therefore, a 'right to log off' for workers outside the agreed working hours; calls on the Commission and its agencies, in particular EU-OSHA, to examine the effects of digitisation, robotics and artificial intelligence on mental strain and to make policy recommendations where necessary; calls for employees to be given the opportunity to play an active part in shaping their work environment and for social partners and unions to be involved at all levels;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Emilian PAVEL, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Agnes JONGERIUS, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Notes that the increasing use of new technologies and means of electronic communication at the workplace raises many questions concerning workers' privacy and the new possibilities of monitoring and surveillance; believes that the use, processing and storage of employee-related data needs strict rules in line with the Regulation 2016/679 to prevent an infringement of workers' fundamental rights and ensure a right to data access for the worker;

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2271(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Joachim SCHUSTER, Flavio ZANONATO, Siôn SIMON, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ, Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Believes that with the increasing digitisation of workplaces, it is essential to amend the rules of liability concerning the consequences associated with the actions or inaction of automated systems and robots, keeping also in mind work injuries caused by robots; is concerned by the lack of general framework and legal provisions in this context and calls for a legal framework that reflects the complexity of digitising European industry and its social implications.

2017/02/02
Committee: EMPL

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas big data refers to the recurring accumulation of large amounts of data, including personal data, from a variety of sources, which are subject to automatic processing by computer algorithms and advanced data-processing techniques in order to generate certain correlations, trends and patterns (big data analytics);deleted

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas big data refers to the recurring accumulation of large amounts of data, including personal data, from a variety of sources, which are subject to automatic processing by computer algorithms and advanced data-processing techniques in order to generate certain correlations, trends and patterns (big data analytics);

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the big data market is growing as the technology and process of data-driven decision making is increasingly accepted as a solution;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas there is no methodology yet to make an evidence-based assessment of the impact of big data but there is evidence proving that big data analytics and decision making solutions have the potential to have a significant impact in a wide range of application areas horizontally across both the public and private sectors;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

C c. whereas big data in decision making would ultimately provide a competitive advantage to European companies by improving business-critical management while the public sector would benefit from an increase in efficiency through greater insights on socio-economic developments at different scales;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

D a. whereas we observe a blurring difference between personal and non- personal data emerging from the use of big data and big data analytics has the potential to create new personal data;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas biased algorithms and other analytical tools, low quality of data, spurious correlations, errors, the underestimation of legal, social and ethical implications and the marginalisation of the role of humans in these processes can trigger flawed decision-making procedurethe misuse of big data results can have legal, social and ethical implications;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. Whereas leaks of personal data or non- personal data that can re-identify a data subject would obviously impact upon the reputation of companies as a breach of security can have significant business implications;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that information revealed by big data analysis is only as reliable as the underlying data permits, and that strong scientific and ethical standards are therefore needed for judging the results of such analysis and its predictive algorithms;deleted

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Emphasises that there is a need to promote an education system creating the basis for understanding the opportunities and risks of big data and develop accordingly the curricula in informatics throughout the Member States at all levels of education;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Stresses that the poor knowledge of citizens about the nature of big data allows the use of personal information in unintended ways;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Highlights that privacy by design is an indispensable tool for big data, allowing for early implementation of relevant controls that are protecting the individuals' personal data by default;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Urges corporations and other data controllers to make use of instruments provided for by the GDPR, such as codes of conduct ~~and~~, certification schemes, privacy by design and privacy by default, to seek greater certainty over their specific obligations under Union law and to bring their practices and activities into compliance with the appropriate Union legal standards and safeguards;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2225(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Takes the view that a privacy impact assessment should be obligatory for the public sector and for the companies using big data analytics in their everyday activities;

2016/12/19
Committee: LIBE

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)

– having regard to the Directive 2015/849 of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the ‘Panama Papers’ and ‘LuxLeaks’ scandals, as revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), have shown the urgent need for the EU and its Member States to fight tax evasion and avoidance and act for increased cooperation and transparency in order to re-establish tax justice, prevent money laundering and combat organised crime, including terrorism;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the scale of tax evasion and avoidance is estimated by the Commission to be EUR 1 trillion19 a year, while the OECD estimates20 the revenue loss at global level to be between 4 % and 10 % of all corporate income tax revenue, representing between EUR 75 and EUR 180 billion annually, at 2014 levels; whereas these are only estimates and the actual figures might be even higher; whereas the costs to society of such practices are evident, seriously undermine good governance and trust in democracy; whereas tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning erode the tax base of Member States and thereby lead to loss of tax revenues; __________________ 19 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxati on/tax_fraud_evasion/a_huge_problem/ind ex_en.htm, European Commission, 10 May 2016. 20 Measuring and Monitoring BEPS, Action 11 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the primary job creators in Europe, having created around 85 % of all new jobs in Europe21 during the last five years; whereas the Commission has stated that SMEs pay on average 30 % more in tax than multinational enterprises (MNEs); whereas this seriously distorts competition, leads to loss of jobs in the Union, fosters inequality and hinders sustainable growth; __________________ 21 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/, European Commission, 10 May 2016.

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas convergence of tax policies should also be accompanied by greater controls and more investigations of harmful tax practices; whereas the Commission has started new formal investigations regarding tax treatment of MNEs; whereas a number of investigations by the Commission in matters of state aid in connection with Member States tax practices were still ongoing at the time of adoption of this report; whereas certain Member States have initiated recovery procedures against some MNEs;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the hearings organised with Andorra, Guernsey, Jersey, Liechtenstein and Monaco (see Annex 1) showed that the conditions for registration of offshore companies and the information to be provided in this regard vary from one jurisdiction to another; whereas full information on the final beneficiaries of trusts, foundations and companies by official tax authorities of some of these jurisdictions is not known to exist or is never made public; whereas Directive 2015/849 of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing still leaves a wide margin of discretion to Member States on the level of transparency and accessibility of beneficial owners of corporate entities; whereas Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland have signed agreements with the EU; whereas the Channel Islands have signed agreements with the UK and have declared their readiness to enter into similar agreements with other Member States; whereas the Cayman Islands have only appeared at a coordinators’' meeting and not at a formal hearing of the Special Committee; whereas the Isle of Man declined to appear before the Special Committee but sent a written contribution instead;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z a (new)

Za. whereas global tax reforms and international tax cooperation within an intergovernmental UN body are key to strengthening the domestic collection of corporate income tax, especially from MNEs;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Reiterates the crucial role of whistleblowers in revealing misconduct and illegal and wrongful practices; considers that such revelations, which shine a light on the magnitude of tax evasion and avoidance, corruption, money laundering and other financial crimes, are clearly in the public interest, as demonstrated in the recent ‘'Panama papers’' leak;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Observes that the Commission is limiting its action to monitoring developments in different areas of Union competences, without planning to take any concrete steps to tackle the issue; notes that this lack of ambition could endanger the publication of new revelations, thereby potentially leading to European tax authorities losing legitimate tax revenue, besides the damage inflicted in public trust in the Union and in Member States’ actual governance capacity; regrets that the Commission has not provided a satisfactory response to the demands contained in paragraphs 144 and 145 of Parliament’'s resolution of 25 November 2015;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Calls on the Commission to include in the framework of the European Semester reporting of what measures the Member States take towards effective and fair taxation and to enhance efforts against harmful cross- border tax practices and tax evasion, including tax amnesties, tax exemptions or tax benefits granted to MNEs and any companies established in their own "free trade zones", "dependent territories " and preferred jurisdictions for offshore incorporation, including recommendations for strengthening national tax administrations;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Welcomes the renewed focus at G8 and G20 level on tax issues, which should lead to new recommendations; calls on the Commission to maintain a coherent position on behalf of the Union at the upcoming G20 meetings and ad hoc symposia; requests the Commission to inform Parliament about all findings and possible consequences of G20 decisions on combating corporate tax base erosion ~~and~~, aggressive tax planning practices and any illicit financial flows;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Marju LAURISTIN, Ana GOMES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47a. Stresses the potential of digital solutions for effective tax collection in gathering tax data directly from operations in the sharing economy and in lowering the overall workload of tax authorities in Member States;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2033(INI)

Caterina CHINNICI, Cătălin Sorin IVAN, Marju LAURISTIN

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas tax evasion has serious economic and social consequences on European societies. Tax avoidance and tax evasion not only deprive Member States from raising sufficient revenues, but it increases inequalities among law abiding tax payers and citizens disregarding their duties;

2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE

2016/2033(INI)

Caterina CHINNICI, Cătălin Sorin IVAN, Marju LAURISTIN

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)

Ad. whereas criminal organizations set up large scale VAT fraud by taking advantage of the legislative gaps and asymmetries existing across EU Member States supervision authorities;

2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE

2016/2033(INI)

Caterina CHINNICI, Marju LAURISTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to carry out an extensive evaluation of the revenues that criminal organizations raise each year through VAT frauds and reinvest in the legal economy through money laundering.

2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE

2016/2033(INI)

Caterina CHINNICI, Cătălin Sorin IVAN, Marju LAURISTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission to present a comprehensive strategy to counter criminal organization's VAT fraud business model including activities related to money laundering.

2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE

2016/2033(INI)

Caterina CHINNICI, Marju LAURISTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Calls on Member States to adopt all appropriate legislative and administrative measures to ensure the traceability of financial flows and the transparency of banking institutions in order to prevent VAT fraud revenues from being reinvested.

2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1

Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . __________________ 34Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used thereforNo general obligation should be imposed on information society service providers to monitor the works or subject matter which they transmit or store, nor should a general obligation be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating activity that would infringe rights under copyrighted works. Hosting providers should not be held liable as long as they do not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and are not aware of the facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity or information is apparent, pursuent to Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC.

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Emilian PAVEL, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on ~~rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on~~ the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 626 final.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Title IV – Chapter 2 – title

~~Certain uses of protected content by online services~~deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13

Use of protected content by information giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by 1. providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. 2. the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. 3. where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.Article 13 deleted society service providers storing and their users Information society service Member States shall ensure that Member States shall facilitate,

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Emilian PAVEL, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Dietmar KÖSTER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Emilian PAVEL, Tiemo WÖLKEN, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.deleted

2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15

(15) While distance learning and cross- border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education, as well as organizations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non- commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) An open Internet and free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Monika VANA, Bodil VALERO, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to ~~define~~clarify the sco~~ncept~~pe of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weeklotection set out in Article s2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC. In order to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, and to ensure the freedom to carry out certain acts necessary for ~~monthly magazines of general or special i~~the normal functioning of the Internest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection doess well as to take account of certain fundamental rights, these Articles should not extend to acts of hyperlinking, which do not constitute communication to the public.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Marietje SCHAAKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Evelyn REGNER, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4

(4) ‘press publication’ means a fixation of a collection of literary works of a journalistic nature, which may also comprise other works or subject-matter and constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine, having the purpose of providing information related to news or other topics and published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marju LAURISTIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Article 11

Protection of press publications 1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject- matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.Article 11 deleted concerning digital uses

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11

1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject- matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.Article 11 deleted Protection of press publications concerning digital uses

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1

~~1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3

~~3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Catherine STIHLER, Victor NEGRESCU, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or other relevant judicial authority.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Felix REDA, Isabella ADINOLFI, Max ANDERSSON, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Brando BENIFEI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, David BORRELLI, Klaus BUCHNER, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Matt CARTHY, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Daniel DALTON, Fabio DE MASI, Pascal DURAND, Stefan ECK, Bas EICKHOUT, Cornelia ERNST, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Laura FERRARA, Thomas HÄNDEL, Heidi HAUTALA, Benedek JÁVOR, Kaja KALLAS, Ska KELLER, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Merja KYLLÖNEN, Philippe LAMBERTS, Marju LAURISTIN, Sabine LÖSING, Ulrike LUNACEK, Jiří MAŠTÁLKA, Martina MICHELS, Victor NEGRESCU, Jozo RADOŠ, Evelyn REGNER, Michel REIMON, Terry REINTKE, Judith SARGENTINI, Marietje SCHAAKE, Helmut SCHOLZ, Molly SCOTT CATO, Davor ŠKRLEC, Igor ŠOLTES, Catherine STIHLER, Dario TAMBURRANO, Indrek TARAND, Jana TOOM, Ernest URTASUN, Bodil VALERO, Monika VANA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Gabriele ZIMMER, Laura AGEA, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Yannick JADOT, Nessa CHILDERS, Rosa D'AMATO, Marco VALLI, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Florent MARCELLESI

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2

~~2. The provisions of Article 11 shall also apply to press publications published before [the date mentioned in Article 21(1)].~~deleted

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(c a) 'registering' of an application for international protection means the recording of the personal details, in accordance with [Article 10(1) of the Eurodac Regulation] of an applicant for international protection, which formalises the application for international protection;

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)

(c b) 'lodging' of an application for international protection means the submission of elements available to the applicant which may help to substantiate the application for international protection in accordance with [Article 4(1) of the Qualification Regulation];

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point f

(f) 'guardian' means a person or an organisation appointed by the comptent bodies to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor in procedures provided for in this Regulation with a view to safeguarding the best interests of the child and his or her ~~general~~ well-being ~~in procedures provided for in this Regulation~~, and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary;

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall ensure that the personnel of the determining authority, or of any other authority responsible for receiving and registering applications for international protection in accordance with paragraph 3, 4 and 4a have the appropriate knowledge and are provided with the necessary training and instructions to fulfil their obligations when applying this Regulation.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Elly SCHLEIN, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

The determining authority shall inform applicants, in a language which they understand or are reasonably meant to understand and in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, of the following:

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Elly SCHLEIN, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) the right to legal assistance for the lodging of the individual application, including the possibility of free legal assistance in accordance with Article 15;

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point f

(f) the means at their disposal for fulfilling the obligation to submit the elements as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) including the right to free legal assistance and representation;

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Birgit SIPPEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

TAll the information referred to in the first paragraph shall be given in good time to enable the applicants to exercise the rights guaranteed in this Regulation and for them to adequately comply with the obligations set out in Article 7. The information referred to in points (a) to (g) shall be given to the applicant at the moment when the application for international protection is registered.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The determining authority may also provide applicants with a cultural mediator to assist him or her during the procedure and, in particular, during the personal interview.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. BWhere a determining authority decides to carry out an admissibility test in accordance with Article 36, and before a decision is taken by theat determining authority on the admissibility of an application for international protection, the applicant shall be given the opportunity of an personal interview on the admissibility of his or her application.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Caterina CHINNICI, Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. The personal interviews shall be conducted under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality and ~~which~~Member States shall take appropriate steps to ensure that those conditions allow applicants to present the grounds for their applications in a comprehensive manner.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

The absence of a personal interview pursuant to point (b) shall not adversely affect the decision of the determining authority. That authority shall give the applicant an effective opportunity to submit further information. When in doubt as to the condition of the applicant, the determining authority shall consult a medical professional to establish whether the condition that makes the applicant unfit or unable to be interviewed is of a temporary or enduring nature. If, following consultation of that medical professional, it is clear that the condition making the applicant unfit or unable to be interviewed is of a temporary nature, the determining authority shall postpone the personal interview until such time as the applicant is fit to be interviewed.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6

6. The person conducting the interview shall be competent to take account of the personal and general circumstances surrounding the application, including the ~~applicant’~~situation prevailing in the applicant's country of origin, the applicant's cultural origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and vulnerability. Personnel interviewing applicants shall also have acquired general knowledge of problems which could adversely affect the applicant's ability to be interviewed, such as indications that the person may have been tortured in the past.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 9

9. TWithout prejudice to Article 10, paragraph 1, and Article 11, paragraph 1, and provided that sufficient efforts have been made to ensure that the applicant has been afforded the opportunity of a personal interview, the absence of a personal interview shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on an application for international protection.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. As soon as an application for international protection has been registered by the responsible authorities in accordance with Article 27, the applicants shall have the right to consult, in an effective manner, a legal adviser or other counsellor, admitted or permitted as such under national law, on matters relating to their applications at all stages of the procedure.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal adviser or other counsellor at his or her own cost, an applicant may request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure in accordance with Articles 15 to 17. TAs soon as an application for international protection has been registered by the responsible authorities in accordance with Article 27, the applicant shall be informed of his or her right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. As soon as an application for international protection has been registered by the responsible authorities in accordance with Article 27, Member States shall, at the request of the applicant, provide free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure provided for in Chapter III and in the appeal procedure provided for in Chapter V.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Elly SCHLEIN, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point –a (new)

(-a) assistance in preparing and lodging the application in accordance with Article 28;

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) assistance in the preparation of the application and personal interview, including participation in the personal interview ~~as necessary~~;

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Kati PIRI, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a court or tribunal on ground that the appeal is considered as having no tangible prospect of success, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against that decision, and for that purpose he or she shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation. In the application of this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective access to justice is not hindered.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 6

6. Without prejudice to Article 22(5), the absence of a legal adviser or other counsellor shall not prevent the determining authority from conducting a personal interview with the applicant, provided that the applicant has been informed of his or her right to legal assistance and representation – including free legal assistance and representation where appropriate – and has chosen not to exercise that right.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Kati PIRI, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

The determining authority shall systematically and individually assess whether an individual applicant is in need of special procedural guarantees with the assistance of a qualified interpreter where needed. That assessment ~~may~~shall be integrated into existing national procedures or into the assessment referred to in Article 21 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive) ~~and need not take the form of an administrative procedure.~~

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Kati PIRI, Caterina CHINNICI, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Elly SCHLEIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Where there are indications that applicants may have been victim of torture, rape or of another serious form of psychological, physical, sexual or gender-based violence and that this could adversely affect their ability to participate effectively in the procedure, the determining authority shall refer the applicants to a doctor or a psychologist for further assessment of their psychological and physical state. In such cases, the doctor or psychologist shall be trained in carrying out such assessments and be supported by a qualified interpreter.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Birgit SIPPEL, Caterina CHINNICI, Kati PIRI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

The responsible authorities shall not place a guardian in charge of a disproportionate number of unaccompanied minors at the same time, and in any event no more than 20, which would render him or her unable to perform his or her tasks effectively.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Medical examinations may be used~~Where there are doubts as to dwhether~~mine the age of~~ or not an unaccompanied minor~~s within the framework of the examination of an application where,~~ is under the age of 18, following statements by the applicant, available documentary evidence or other relevant indications ~~including~~, Member States may order a psychosocial assessment~~, there are doubts a~~ by qualified professionals to whdether or not the applicant is under the age of 18. Where the result of the medical examination is not conclusive, or includes an age-range below 18 years, Member States shall assume that the applicant is a mimine the age of applicant within the framework of the examination of an application. The age assessment shall not be based solely on the applicant's physical appearance or demeanour.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Ana GOMES, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Where doubts over an unaccompanied minor's age persist following the procedure set out in paragraph 1, medical examinations may be used as a measure of last resort to determine the age of unaccompanied minors within the framework of the examination of an application. Where, taking into account the margin of error of the method employed - the result of the medical examination is not conclusive, or includes an age-range below 18 years, Member States shall assume that the applicant is a minor.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Marju LAURISTIN, Caterina CHINNICI, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4

4. Where medical examinations are used to determine the age of unaccompanied minors, the determining authority shall ensure that unaccompanied minors are informed, prior to the examination of their application for international protection, and in a language that they ~~understand or are reasonably meant to~~ understand, of the possibility that their age be determined by medical examination. This shall include information on the method of examination and possible consequences which the result of the medical examination may have for the examination of the application, including the right to appeal the decision on the medical examination, as well as on the possibility and consequences of a refusal on the part of the unaccompanied minor, or of his or her guardian, to undergo the medical examination. All documents concerning the medical examination shall be added to the applicant’s file.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES, Caterina CHINNICI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 5

5. The refusal by the unaccompanied minors or their guardians to carry out the medical examination may ~~only be considered as a rebuttabl~~not lead to the presumption that the applicant is not a minor ~~and it~~. A refusal to carry out the medical examination shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on the application for international protection, however a decision to reject an application for international protection by an unaccompanied minor who refused to undergo a medical examination shall not be based solely on that refusal.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0224(COD)

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Caterina CHINNICI, Marju LAURISTIN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Ana GOMES

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2

2. The authority responsible for receiving and registering applications for international protection shall give the applicant an effective opportunity to lodge an application within the time-limit established in paragraph 1. In accordance with Article 14(1), the applicant shall have the right to legal assistance and representation to prepare the lodging of his or her application and shall be informed of that right, including the right to free legal assistance and representation where appropriate. Where free legal assistance is requested, the time limit for lodging the application shall start to run upon the appointment of a legal advisor or other counsellor.

2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Kaja KALLAS, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) The last substantive amendment to Directive 89/552/EEC of the Council27 , later codified by Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , was made in 2007 with the adoption of Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 . Since then, the market of audiovisual media services has evolved significantly and rapidly. Technical developments allow for new types of services and user experiences. The viewing habits, particularly of younger generations, have changed significantly. While the main TV screen remains an important device to share audiovisual experiences, many viewers have moved to other, portable devices to watch audiovisual content. Traditional TV content accounts still for a major share of the average daily viewing time. However, new types of content, such as short videos or user-generated content, gain increasing importance and new players, including providers of video-on- demand services and video-sharing platforms, are now well-established. ~~__________________ 27~~ In order to ensure that the measures to regulate these new types of content are suitable for future developments, it is necessary to evaluate whether the current legal framework for audiovisual media services is suitable and whether it strikes the necessary balance with other legal instruments applicable to these new types of content. __________________ 27 Directive 89/552/EEC of the European Directive 89/552/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23). 28 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1). 29 Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 27).

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Marju LAURISTIN

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point d a (new)

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 7a (new)

(da) The following paragraph is inserted: 7a. This Directive and any implementing act thereof shall be without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC and in particular articles 14 and 15.

2016/12/06
Committee: LIBE

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order to empower viewers, including parents and minors, in making informed decisions about the content to be watched, it is necessary that audiovisual media service providers provide sufficient information about content that may impair minors' physical, or mental ~~or moral~~ development. This could be done, for instance, through a system of content descriptors indicating the nature of the content. Content descriptors could be delivered through written, graphical or acoustic means.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16

(16) Product placement should not be admissible in news and current affairs programmes, consumer affairs programmes, religious programmes and ~~programmes with a significant~~ children’'s ~~audience~~programmes. In particular, evidence shows that product placement and embedded advertisements can affect children’s behaviour as children are often not able to recognise the commercial content. There is thus a need to continue to prohibit product placement in ~~programmes with a significant~~ children’'s ~~audience~~programmes. Consumer affairs programmes are programmes offering advice to viewers, or including reviews on the purchase of products and services. Allowing product placement in such programmes would blur the distinction between advertising and editorial content for viewers who may expect a genuine and honest review of products or services in such programmes.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) While this Directive does not increase the overall amount of admissible advertising time during the period from 7:00 to 23:00, it is important for broadcasters to have more flexibility and to be able to decide when to place advertising in order to maximise advertisers' demand and viewers' flow. The hourly limit should thus be abolished while a daily limit of 20% of advertising within the period from 7:00 to 23:00 should be introduced.deleted

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Kaja KALLAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26

(26) There are new challenges, in particular in connection with video-sharing platforms, on which users - particularly minors - increasingly consume audiovisual content. In this context, harmful content and hate speech stored on video-sharing platforms have increasingly given rise to concern. It is necessary, in order to protect minors from harmful content and all citizens from content containing incitement to violence or hatred, to set out proportionate rules on those matters. Video-sharing platform providers should be encouraged to put in place voluntary measures on those matters, provided that user's fundamental rights are protected, in accordance with guidelines issued by regulatory authorities, and without prejudice to Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 33a . Such measures should avoid arbitrary removal of content and should not undermine freedom of expression and information. __________________ 33a Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) An important share of the content stored on video-sharing platforms is not under the editorial responsibility of the video-sharing platform provider. However, where thoese providers ~~typically~~ determine the organisation of the content, namely programmes or user-generated videos, including by automatic means or algorithms~~. Therefore, those providers~~, they should be ~~requir~~encouraged to take appropriate measures to protect minors from content that may impair their physical, or mental ~~or moral~~ development and protect all citizens from incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to sex, race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Kaja KALLAS, Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31 a (new)

(31a) To ensure the protection of fundamental rights of users, regulatory authorities of Member States, in cooperation with ERGA and the Commission, should regularly issue guidelines on the terms and conditions applicable to the removal of harmful content, in accordance with national and Union law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Kaja KALLAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38

(38) This Directive is without prejudice to the ability of Member States to impose obligations to ensure discoverability and accessibility of content of general interest under defined general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of speech and cultural diversity. Such obligations should only be imposed where they are necessary to meet general interest objectives clearly defined by Member States in conformity with Union law. ~~In this respect, Member States should in particular examine the need for regulatory intervention against the results of the outcome of market forces.~~ Where Member States decide to impose discoverability rules, they should only impose proportionate obligations on undertakings, in the interest of legitimate public policy considerations.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that audiovisual media service providers provide sufficient information to viewers about content which may impair the physical, or mental ~~or moral~~ development of minors. For this purpose, Member States may use a system of descriptors indicating the nature of the content of an audiovisual media service.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Member States and the Commission shall encourage the development of self- and co- regulatory codes of conduct regarding inappropriate audiovisual commercial communications, accompanying or included in ~~programmes with a significant~~ children’'s ~~audience~~programmes, of foods and beverages containing nutrients and substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, excessive intakes of which in the overall diet are not recommended, in particular fat, trans-fatty acids, salt or sodium and sugars.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Jana TOOM, María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Marju LAURISTIN, Hannu TAKKULA, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 12 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that programmes provided by audiovisual media service providers under their jurisdiction, which may impair the physical, or mental ~~or moral~~ development of minors are only made available in such a way as to ensure that minors will not normally hear or see them. Such measures may include selecting the time of the broadcast, age verification tools or other technical measures. They shall be proportionate to the potential harm of the programme.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT