Activities of Anna HEDH related to 2010/2311(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU counter-terrorism policy: main achievements and future challenges (short presentation)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas after the atrocious attacks of 11 September 2001 the first decade of the 21st century has been marked by the ‘War on Terrorism’, especially with regard to the US approach; whereas although the attacks did not take place on European soil, all Europeans felt them to be an attack on their values and their way of life,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas although the experiences of terrorism as well as threat levels are varying across the EU Member States, a common EU-approach is needed since terrorist operations often are pan- European and terrorists make use of European diversity in laws, anti-terrorism capabilities and the abolition of border controls when committing their acts,
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the aim of counter-terrorism policies should be to undermine the objectives of terrorism, which are to destroy the fabric of oura free, open and democratic society; whereas the aims of counter-terrorism must be to protect and strengthen that fabric of democratic society and to prevent and combat terrorism through inclusion policies, cross border judicial and police cooperation and an effective and coordinated strategy at EU level and the effectiveness of counter- terrorism policies must be measured against thisese aims; whereas in this logic, strengthening civil liberties and democratic scrutiny is not an obstacle to such policies, but their prime objective,
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Believes that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should always be the compass for EU policies in this field and for Member States in the implementation thereof as well as in cooperation with third parties and third countries;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that counter-terrorism policies should meet the standards set with regard to necessity, effectiveness, proportionality, civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic scrutiny and accountability, and that assessing whether these standards are met must be an integral part of an evaluation;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Considers that prevention, tracking and prosecution of terrorist activities are critical policies at EU level and have to be part of a systematic approach, based not on emergency norms but on a coherent, necessity founded strategy, purpose and cost effective and avoiding duplication of measures and function creep of competent institutions, agencies and bodies;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Believes that prevention, investigation and prosecution of terrorist activities should be based on the reinforcement of judicial and police cooperation at EU level, coupled with full parliamentary scrutiny and full and timely completion of the roadmap for a high level set of uniform procedural guarantees;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Invites the Commission to define a uniform set of standards for the protection of and the specific support to victims of terrorism, including in the framework of criminal proceeding, foreseeing also measures to ensure the protection of witnesses;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3 e. Reiterates that the forthcoming revision of EU data protection legislation should extend to judicial and police cooperation the high level standards now ensured by Directive 95/46/EC, doing away with the current lack of sufficient guarantees; this process should also lead to define a data protection framework for data protection applicable to CFSP in accordance with Article 16 TFEU and Article 39 TEU;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3 f. Reaffirms that restrictive measures, particularly the freezing of assets, can be useful as a counter-terrorism tool but they will have to be based on the new Article 75 TFEU and fully compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a proper evaluation of ten years of counter-terrorism policies must provide the basis for ashould focus on examining whether the measures taken to prevent and combat terrorism in the EU have been evidence-based, needs- driven, coherent and comprehensive EU counter-terrorism strategy by means ofand should be carried out by an in-depth and complete appraisal to be carried out by a panel of independent experts;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a
Paragraph 5 – point a
a. provide a clear input and output analysis of counter-terrorism policies in Europe in the past decade and set out clearly the results of the policies in terms of effectiveness, prevention, prosecution and increased security in Europe;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b
Paragraph 5 – point b
b. set out the facts and figures relating to terrorist activity (successful, failed, prevented attacks) and counter-terrorism activity (arrests and convictions)nd counter-terrorism activity in as great detail as possible;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c
Paragraph 5 – point c
c. include a full overview of the accumulated impact of counter-terrorism measures on civil libertiefundamental rights, including Member State policies and measures by third countries with a direct impact in the EU;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to draw up a complete and detailed ‘map’ of all counter- terrorism policies in Europe, with a special focus on EU legislation and how it has been transposed and implemented at national level; calls at the same time on Member States to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of their counter- terrorism policies, with a particular focus on interaction with EU policies, overlap and gaps, to cooperate better in the evaluation of EU policies, - including to provide correlation tables which identifies which provisions of Member State laws and regulations transpose the different provisions of EU acts and to provide their input within the given deadlines, as in the case of the Data Retention Directive8 ;