25 Amendments of Dragoş TUDORACHE related to 2021/0411(COD)
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In an area without internal border controls, police officers and other competent law enforcement staff in one Member State should have, within the framework of the applicable Union and national law, the possibility to obtain equivalent access to the information available to their colleagues in another Member State. In this regard, law enforcement authorities should cooperate effectively and by default across the Union. Therefore, an essential component of the measures that underpin public security in an interdependent area without internal border controls is police cooperation on the exchange of relevant information for law enforcement purposethe purpose of detecting, investigating and preventing crimes and other threats to public security, conducting criminal investigations or criminal operations. Exchange of information on crime and criminal activities, including terrorism, serves the overall objective of protecting the security of natural persons.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5 a) Organised criminal groups are involved in cross- border crimes thus swift information exchange and operational cooperation between police forces is paramount in fighting them. For a more efficient outcome, the new set of rules should promote a common EU culture of policing, starting with common tactical and technical training, more effective rules on the ground, exchange programmes and language courses in order to overcome the language barriers in an increasingly diverse Europe.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) It is necessary to lay down harmonised rules governing the cross- cutting aspects of such information exchange between Member States. The rules of this Directive should not affect the application of rules of Union law on specific systems or frameworks for such exchanges, such as under Regulations (EU) 2018/186050 , (EU) 2018/186151 , (EU) 2018/186252 , and (EU) 2016/79453 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives (EU) 2016/68154 and 2019/115355 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Decisions 2008/615/JHA56 and 2008/616/JHA57 . _________________ 50 Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 1). 51 Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation No 1987/2006 (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 14). 52 Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation No 1986/2006 and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 56). 53 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 and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53). 54 Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132). 55 Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122). 56 Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross- border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1). 57 Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12). A proposal for a Regulation on automated data exchange for police cooperation ("Prüm II"), intends to repeal parts of those Council Decisions.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to achieve the objective to facilitate and ensure the adequate and rapid exchange of information between Member States, provision should be made for obtaining such information by addressing a request for information to the Single Point of Contact of the other Member State concerned, in accordance with certain clear, simplified and harmonised requirements. Concerning the content of such requests for information, it should in particular be specified, in an exhaustive and sufficiently detailed manner and without prejudice to the need for a case-by- case assessment, when they are to be considered as urgent and, which explanations they are to contain as minimum and in which language they are to be submitted.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Whilst the Single Points of Contact of each Member State should in any event have the possibility to submit requests for information to the Single Point of Contact of another Member State, in the interest of flexibility, Member States should be allowed to decide that, in addition, their competent law enforcement authorities may also submit such requests. In order for Single Points of Contact to be able to perform their coordinating functions under this Directive, it is however necessary that, where a Member State takes such a decision, its Single Point of Contact is made aware of all such outgoing requests, as well as of any communications relating thereto, by always being put in copy.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) TClearly specified time limits are necessary to ensure rapid processing of requests for information submitted to a Single Point of Contact. Such time limits should be clear and proportionate and take into account whether the request for information is urgent and whether a prior judicial authorisation is required. In order to ensure compliance with the applicable time limits whilst nonetheless allowing for a degree of flexibility where objectively justified, it is necessary to allow, on an exceptional basis, for deviations only where, and in as far as, the competent judicial authority of the requested Member State needs additional time to decide on granting the necessary judicial authorisation. Such a need could arise, for example, because of the broad scope or the complexity of the matters raised by the request for information.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The requirement of a prior judicial authorisation for the provision of information can be an important safeguard. The Member States' legal systems are different in this respect and this Directive should not be understood as affecting such requirements established under national law, other than subjecting them to the condition that domestic exchanges and exchanges between Member States are treated in an equivalent manner, both on the substance and procedurally. Furthermore, in order to keep any delays and complications relating to the application of such a requirement to a minimum, the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities, as applicable, of the Member State of the competent judicial authority should take all practical and legal steps, where relevant in cooperation with the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authority of another Member State that requested the information, to obtain the judicial authorisation as soon as possiblewithin the indicated time limits.
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to allow for adequate and rapid provision of information by Single Points of Contact, either upon request or on their own initiative, it is important that the relevant officials of the Member States concerned understand each other. Language barriers often hamper the cross- border exchange of information. For this reason, rules should be established on the use of a list of common EU working languages in which requests for information submitted to the Single Points of Contact, the information to be provided by Single Points of Contact as well as any other communications relating thereto, such as on refusals and clarifications, are to be provided. Those rules should strike a balance between, on the one hand, respecting the linguistic diversity within the Union and keeping costs of translation as limited as possible and, on the other hand, operational needs associated with adequate and rapid exchanges of information across borders. Therefore, Member States should establish a list containing one or more official languages of the Union of their choice, but containing also one language that is broadly understood and used in practice, namely, English.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The further development of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) as the Union’s criminal information hub is a priority. That is why, when information or any related communications are exchanged, irrespective of whether that is done pursuant to a request for information submitted to a Single Point of Contact or law enforcement authority, or on their own-imitative, a copy should be sent to Europol, however only insofar as it concerns offences falling within the scope of the objectives of Europol. In practice, this can be done through the ticking by default of the corresponding SIENA box.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) The cross-border nature of crime and terrorism requires Member States to rely on one another to tackle such criminal offences. Adequate and rapid information flows between relevant law enforcement authorities and to Europol cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting alone. Due to the scale and effects of the action, this can be better achieved at Union level through the establishment of common rules on the exchange of information and thorough modern tools and communication channels. Thus, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Directive establishes harmonised rules for the exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of the Member States where necessary for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating criminal offences.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) requests for information submitted to the Single Points of Contact established or designated by the Member States, in particular on the content of such requests, mandatory time limits for providing the requested information, reasons for refusals of such requests, the working language(s) and the channel of communication to be used in connection to such requests;
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) the establishment, tasks, composition and capabilities of the Single Point of Contact, including on the deployment and functioning of a single electronic Case Management System for the fulfilment of its tasks.
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) 'law enforcement authority' means police and border authority and any authority of the Member States competent under national law for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating criminal offences;
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) 'information' means any pertinent content concerning one or more natural persons, facts or circumstances relevant to law enforcement authorities in connection to the exercise of their tasks under national law of preventing, detecting or investigating criminal offences;
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) 'available' information means information that is either held by the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities of the requested Member State, or information that those Single Points of Contact or those law enforcement authorities can obtain from other public authorities or from private parties established in that Member State without coercive measures under national law;
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the conditions for requesting and providing information from and to the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities of other Member States, and those for providing information to the Single Points of Contact and the law enforcement authorities of other Member States, are equivalent to those applicable for requesting and providing similar information from and to their own law enforcement authorities (‘principle of equivalent access’);
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Any request for information to the Single Point of Contact of another Member State shall specify and justify whether or not it is urgent.
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
(iii) unduly harm the vital interests and integrity of a natural or legal person.
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) the categories of personal data provided remain limited to those listed, in Section B, point 2, of Annex II tof Regulation (EU) 2016/794 and necessary for achieving the purpose of the request;
Amendment 280 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that, where their Single Point of Contact or their law enforcement authorities send requests for information, provide information pursuant to such requests, provide information on their own initiative or send other communications and relevant information relating thereto under Chapters II and III, they also send, at the same time, a copy thereof to Europol, insofar as the information to which the communication relates concerns offences falling within the scope of the objectives of Europol in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794.
Amendment 285 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that their Single Point of Contact is empowered and equipped to carry out at least all of the following tasks:
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) their Single Point of Contact is provided with the staff, modern operational tools, resources and capabilities, including for translation, necessary to carry out its tasks in an adequate and rapid manner in accordance with this Directive and in particular the time limits set out in Article 5(1);
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Member States should provide the staff of the their national Single Point of Contact with adequate tactical and technical training, IT upgrades, language courses and access to exchange programmes in order for them to be able to perform their functions under this Directive;
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that any personal data processed by their Single Point of Contact are contained in the Case Management System only for as long as is necessary and proportionate for the purposes for which the personal data are processedthe time- limits stipulated in Article 5 and are subsequently irrevocably deleted.