Activities of Roselyne LEFRANÇOIS
Plenary speeches (28)
European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013 (amendment of Decision No 573/2007/EC) - Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (recast) - Application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by third-country nationals or stateless persons (recast) - Establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints (recast) - Establishment of a European Asylum Support Office (debate)
Protection of animals used for scientific purposes (debate)
Common consular instructions: biometric identifiers and visa applications (debate)
Food prices in Europe (short presentation)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
The common agricultural policy and global food security (short presentation)
Organisation of working time (debate)
Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment - Single application procedure for residence and work
Support schemes for farmers under the CAP - Modifications to the common agricultural policy - Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - Community strategic guidelines for rural development (2007 to 2013) (debate)
Evaluation of the Australia-EU PNR agreement – EU PNR (debate)
Combating terrorism - Protection of personal data (debate)
Combating terrorism - Protection of personal data (debate)
Migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (debate)
Explanations of vote
Situation in Georgia (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 (debate)
Framework for the activities of lobbyists in the EU institutions (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Freedom, security and justice (annual debate) (Articles 2 and 39 TEU) (debate)
The role of women in industry (debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT Report on the proposal for a Council Framework decision amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism PDF (232 KB) DOC (305 KB)
Amendments (174)
Amendment 23 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates that the management of migration requires genuine partnership and cooperation with third countries of origin and transit, as they often have the impression that decisions are being imposed on them unilaterally;
Amendment 32 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Regrets that, so far, too little has been done to establish a common legal immigration policy and that, apart from the document concerning the 'blue card', only the control aspect of immigration has made real progress since the Tampere Summit in 1999;
Amendment 35 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5e. Considers that the development of a common immigration policy could benefit substantially from regular consultation of representatives of civil society, particularly migrants' associations;
Amendment 39 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that legal migration is necessary in order to address Europe'sshould be encouraged both because of what it can contribute to Europe in terms of demographic,y, the labour market and skills needs; it alsoand because it contributes to the development of third countries, particularly through migrant remittance by means of the exchange of knowledge and know- how which it entails; calls for the implementation of secure systems which facilitate these financial transfers to third countries;
Amendment 45 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the approach initiated by the document on the 'blue card' for a common legal immigration policy, but calls on Member States to make more progress towards common rules on an immigration policy which is not limited to highly skilled workers;
Amendment 82 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that integration should be based on social inclusion, anti- discrimination, equal opportunities, education, intercultural dialogue and diversity management in schools and the workplace; access to social rights (employment, housing, health and education), political rights (the right of long-term residents to vote in local elections), intercultural dialogue and diversity management in schools and the workplace; stresses in this context the important role played by trade unions, professional federations and associations of other kinds in the integration of migrants;
Amendment 94 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 k (new)
Paragraph 12 k (new)
Amendment 106 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for the replacement of current national Schengen visas with uniform European Schengen visas, allowing for equal treatment of all visa applicants, and calls for a study into the setting up of a system requiring third-country nationals to obtain electronic authorisation to travel before travelling to EU territory;
Amendment 112 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 148 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that illegal immigration is often operated by criminal networks which have, so far, proved to be more effective than common European action; is convinced that this cynical network is responsible for the death of hundreds of people whose lives are lost at sea every year; calls, therefore, on the Commission and on Council to redouble their efforts in the fight against organised crime and human trafficking and particularly to try to dismantle all the networks by tackling not only the people smugglers, who are merely the visible linchpin, but those who, at the top of the ladder, derive the most advantage from these criminal operations;
Amendment 155 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers that migrants who are illegally staying on the territory of the Member States and who are not entitled to international protection have to be required to leave; welcomnot entitled to international protection and whose irregular situation has been duly established by means of an administrative procedure (application for asylum or for a residence permit) have to be required to leave the territory of the European Union; notes, in this regard, the adoption of the Return Directive and urgescalls on Member States to transpose it as so, in the context of its transposition, to preserve more favourable provisions as possiblelready laid down in their domestic law; calls on Member States to ensure that returns are conducted with due regard to the law and the dignity of the persons involved, giving due preference to voluntary return, and that detention is used only as a last resort;
Amendment 184 #
2008/2331(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Alerts Member States to the risk of externalisation of the management of migratory movements; reiterates that it firmly rejects the idea of creating reception or detention centres for immigrants without identity documents or asylum-seekers outside the borders of the EU and in the regions of origin of immigration;
Amendment 2 #
2008/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that there can be no genuine European citizenship unless the principle of gender equality is recognised and applied;
Amendment 4 #
2008/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the right of free movement and residence, which plays a full part in European citizenship, has a tremendous impact on family life and women's educational and professional choices; therefore invites the Commission to take into consideration women's specific needs in this field;
Amendment 7 #
2008/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that involvement in politics is an important expression of citizenship which could be encouraged among women by concrete measure such as increasing and improving care facilities for young children;
Amendment 8 #
2008/2234(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission for reinforcement of information programmes on Union Citizenship in order to fully inform children, especially young girls and women in educational institutions, and in particular in geographically and socially disadvantaged regions; calls for these European citizenship promotion programmes to place particular emphasis on the principle of equality between men and women.
Amendment 8 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that, although the proposed system and alert information might help to deter third-country nationals (TCNs) from overstaying, as well as provide data and information on patterns,Is not convinced that the proposed system would deter third-country nationals (TCNs) from overstaying, and believes that, on the contrary, it could encourage those whose situation has become irregular to remain on EU territory for fear of being arrested at the border; stresses, in addition, that further contact with law enforcement is still necessary for the individual who overstays his or her period of admission to be apprehended, and therefore does not believe that the proposed system will put an end to the 'overstay' phenomenon as such;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Recalls that the correct functioning of the entry/exit system will depend both materially and operationally on the success of the VIS and SIS; points out that these two instruments are not yet fully operational and that it has thus not yet been possible to evaluate them properly; stresses that in the case of the SIS the prior tests of the national systems have thus far yielded negative results, since many of the Member States are not yet ready in technical terms;
Amendment 12 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, without a doubt and following the lessons learned in the US, it is more challenging to implement exit capability than entry, and in particular with regard to sea and land exit; has furthermore, following the same lessons learned, considerable concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system, since it requires major investment for results which so far do not appear to be of great usefulness for fighting either illegal immigration or crime;
Amendment 16 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports in principle the concept ofRecognises that should an entry/exit system be established, an RTP for TCNs, whether or not subject to visa requirements, and the possible use ofwould help speed up traveller flow and prevent congestion at entry and exit points; supports, in principle, the idea of using automated gates byfor EU citizens, since Community law as it stands does not allow the simplification of borders checks except in the case of TCNs residing in border areas;
Amendment 19 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6a (new)
Paragraph 6a (new)
6a. Is concerned that this programme could create a form of discrimination between travellers, especially if participation is made conditional on payment of a membership fee, as is the case in the US and the Netherlands;
Amendment 24 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Finds it unacceptable that the Commission failed to consult either the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and, who had nonetheless expressed a number of concerns, or the Article 29 Working Party prior to the adoption of the Communication entitled 'Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union'; requests the Commission, to do soherefore, to consult both in respect of any action under that Communication, as the proposed building blocks entail the processing of vast amounts of personal data;
Amendment 27 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16a (new)
Paragraph 16a (new)
16a. Deplores, furthermore, the notion of grounding the EU's border management policy in the idea that all travellers are potentially suspect and have to prove their good faith;
Amendment 31 #
2008/2181(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19a (new)
Paragraph 19a (new)
19a. Expresses doubts concerning the necessity and proportionality of the proposed measures, given their expensive nature and the potential risks they pose for data protection;
Amendment 59 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that among factors that most influence the price transmission mechanism and the gap between consumer and producer prices, retail concentration, the extent of cooperative marketing and pricing policies, as well as speculation with agricultural commodities play a determining role; reaffirms, therefore, the importance of market regulation instruments, which are more necessary than ever in the current climate;
Amendment 80 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Draws attention to the fact that retailers take advantage of labels such as that of "fair trade products" in order to increase profit margins at the expense of the consumers; with a view to curbing such practises and controlling the use of these labels, therefore, would like to see a strategy to support and develop fair trade deployed Europe-wide;
Amendment 165 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Amendment 3 #
2008/2100(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that rural areas may find it difficult to adapt to this new regional orientation policy because of their specific characteristics: an ageing population, problems of access arising from inadequate communications and transport networks, multiple jobs of those working in rural areas, the lack of technology for setting up projects and of centres of excellence grouping companies and educational and research institutions;
Amendment 45 #
2008/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas gender stereotyping is instrumental in segregating and differentiating between the sexes from a very young age; whereas this segregation/differentiation sets the tone for lifelong discrimination between the sexes, right from the first years of a child’s socialisation, gender stereotyping is instrumental in segregation/ discrimination which contributes to the perpetuation of lifelong inequalities between women and men,
Amendment 86 #
2008/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the fundamental role which should be played by the school system in developing children's critical faculties with regard to images and the media in general, in order to prevent the disastrous effects of the recurrence of gender stereotypes in marketing and advertising;
Amendment 117 #
2008/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Amendment 39 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) While the Dublin system is not intended to be a mechanism for equitably sharing of responsibilities as regards examining international protection applications, implementation of this system places undue pressure on a number of Member States which are particularly exposed to migratory flows, in particular by virtue of their geographical location. It is thus indispensable to establish as soon as possible legally binding instruments to ensure greater solidarity between Member States and greater protection for applicants. These instruments should in particular provide for the secondment to Member States facing an excessive number of applications of asylum experts from other Member States and, where the reception capacities of one Member State are insufficient, the resettlement of the beneficiaries of international protection in other Member States, providing that those concerned consent to this and that their fundamental rights are respected.
Amendment 50 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that the applicant is reasonably supposed to understands. Member States shall use the common leaflet drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose. (This amendment applies to the text as a whole. If it is adopted, corresponding changes will have to be made throughout.)
Amendment 56 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a representative within the meaning of Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/85/EC represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation. This representative may also be the representative referred to in Article 23 of Directive […/…/EC] [laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers].
Amendment 61 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor who has ano family members within the meaning of Article 2(i) legally present in another Member State but who has another relative legally present in another Member State who can take care of him or her, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application, provided that this is in the best interests of the minor.
Amendment 69 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Where the asylum seeker is dependent on the assistance of a relative in particular on account of pregnancy or a new-born child, serious illness, severe handicap or old age, or where a relative is dependent on the assistance of the asylum seeker for the same reasons, the Member State responsible for examining the application shall be the one considered the most appropriate for keeping them together or reunifying them, provided that family ties existed in the country of origin and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. In determining the most appropriate Member State, the best interests of the persons concerned shall be taken into account, such as the ability of the dependent person to travel.
Amendment 73 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may, at any time, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together family members, as well as other relatives, on humanitarian groundfor humanitarian or compassionate reasons based in particular on family or cultural considerations, even where this latter Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 8 to 12 of this Regulation . The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
Amendment 75 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall in all circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 (a) to (d) examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection made by the applicant, within the meaning of Article 2(d). When the Member State responsible had discontinued the examination of an application following its withdrawal by the applicant, it shall revoke that decision and complete the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 2(d).
Amendment 85 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
This period of time shall not be less than 15 working days from the date of notification referred to in Article 25(1).
Amendment 86 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. In the event of an appeal or review concerning the transfer decision referred to in Article 25, the authority referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall, acting ex- officio, decide, as soon as possible, and in any case no later than seven working days from the lodging of an appeal or of a review, whether or not the person concerned may remain on the territory of the Member State concerned pending the outcome of his/her appeal or decide, at the request of the person concerned and, by default, ex officio, whether or not the person concerned may remain on the territory of the Member State concerned pending the outcome of his/her appeal or review. This decision shall be taken as soon as possible, and in any case no later than seven working days from the lodging of an appeal or of a review.
Amendment 96 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to Article 8(2) of Directive […/…/EC] [laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers], when it proves necessary, on the basis of an individual assessment of each case, and if other less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively, Member States may detain an asylum- seeker or another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(d), who is subject of a decision of transfer to the responsible Member State, to a particular place only if there is a significanterious risk of him/her absconding.
Amendment 104 #
2008/0243(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 8
Article 27 – paragraph 8
8. In every case of a detained person pursuant to paragraph 2, the continued detention shall be reviewed by aex officio by the judicial authority at reasonable intervals of time either onand, when there is a change of circumstances or fresh information becomes available which affects the grounds for detention, at the request byof the person concerned orasylum seeker concerned and, in the absence of such a request, ex- officio. Detention shall never be unduly prolonged.
Amendment 134 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) On 24 November 1986 the Council adopted Directive 86/609/EEC in order to eliminate disparities betweenharmonise laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Since the adoption ofAccordingly, thatis Directive, further disparities between Member States have emerged. Certain Member States have adopted national implementing measures that ensure a high level of protection of animals used for scientific purposes while others only apply the minimum requirements laid down in Directive 86/609/EEC. Accordingly, this Directive should provide for more detailed rules in order to reduce such disparities and to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market should guarantee the application of harmonised objectives and minimum standards throughout the European Union.
Amendment 136 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) It is necessarymay be desirable to include specific invertebrate species within the scope of this Directive, as there is scientific evidence of the potential ability of such species to experience pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm.
Amendment 141 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The methods selected should avoid, as far as possible, death as an end-point due to severe suffering caused by the approaching death. Where possible, it should be substituted by more humane end-pointethical methods using clinical signs that determine the impending death thereby allowing the animal to be killed by a humann appropriate method without any further suffering.
Amendment 143 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) With current scientific knowledge the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures is still necessary in biomedical research. Due to their genetic proximity to human beings and to their highly developed social skills, the use of non- human primates in scientific procedures raises specific ethical and practical problems in terms of meeting their behavioural, environmental and social needs in a laboratory environment. Furthermore, the use of non-human primates is of the highest concern to the public. Therefore the use of non-human primates should only be allowed in those essential biomedical areas for the benefit of human beings for which no other replacement alternative methods are yet available and only in cases where the procedures are carried out in relation to clinical conditions having a substantial impact on patients’ day-today functioning as being either life-threatening or debilitating, or for the preservation of the respective non-human primate species. Fundamental research in someall areas of the biomedical sciences can provide important new information relevant to many life- threatening and debilitating human conditions. The reference to life- threatening or debilitating clicontributing to knowledge of humans, animals or the environment. However, the high sensitivity of non-human primates and their advanced social needs mean that fundamental research projects using such anicmal conditions is established terminology in EC legislation as reflected in Regulation 141/2000/EC, in Directive 2001/20/EC, Regulation 726/2004/EC and Commission Regulation 507/2006/ECs should be subjected to strict scientific peer review and a strict ethical evaluation taking account of the specific characteristics of these species.
Amendment 150 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) At the end of the procedure, the most appropriate decision should be taken as regards the future of the animal on the basis of animal welfare and potential risks to the environment. The animals whose welfare would be compromised should be killed using a humane method. In some cases, animals should be set free or animals such as dogs and cats should be allowed to be re-homused in families as there is a high public concern as to the fate of those animals. Should establishments allow re-homing,specialist centres, but in such cases it is essential that there is a scheme in place to provide the appropriate socialisation to those animals in order to ensure successful re-homingintegration as well as to avoid unnecessary distress to the animals and to guarantee public safety.
Amendment 151 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Animal tissue and organs are used for the development of in vitro methods. To implement the principle of reduction, it would be desirable for Member States shouldto establish programmes for sharing the organs and tissue of animals that are killed using humane methods.
Amendment 153 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) To monitor compliance with this Directive, Member States should carry out at least two inspections annually in each establishment. To ensure public confidence and promote transparency at least one inspection a year must be unannounced. Programmes for joint inspections by Member States should be established to foster an environment of sharing good practice and expertisen average of one inspection per year.
Amendment 156 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) To ensure that the public is informed, it is important that objective information on the projects using live animals is made publicly available. The format of that information should not violate proprietary rights or expose confidential information. Therefore, user establishments should provide anonymous non-technical summaries of those projects, including the results of any retrospective assessments, and make those summariesthe competent authority with data, which may be qualitative and/or quantitative, concerning the use of live animals and make such data publicly available.
Amendment 159 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The technical and scientific advancements in biomedical research can be rapid as can the increase in knowledge of factors influencing animal welfare. It is therefore necessary to provide for review of this Directive. Such a review, based on the results of peer-assessed scientific studies, should examine possible replacement of the use of animals, and in particular non-human primates, as a matter of priority where it is possible, taking into account the advancement of science.
Amendment 161 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 52
Recital 52
Amendment 167 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) live non-human vertebrate animals, including independently feeding larval forms and embryonic or foetal forms of mammals as from the last third of their normal development;
Amendment 184 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the improvement of the production conditions and welfare of animals reared for agricultural purposes.
Amendment 191 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title
Article 6 – title
Amendment 193 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that animals are killed in an authorised establishment, by an authorised person and with a minimum of pain, suffering and distress and, in relation to the species included in Annex V, using the appropriate humane method of killing as set out in that Annex.
Amendment 194 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities may grant exemptions from paragraph 1 on the basis of scientific justification that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of a humann appropriate method of killing or that other methods providing better animal protection have been developed.
Amendment 195 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6a National measures This Directive shall be a reference framework for the Member States in the field of the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, the adoption or application of additional national measures aimed at improving animal welfare may be envisaged.
Amendment 206 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the procedure has one of the purposes referred to in points (1), (2)(a), (3) and is undertaken with a view to the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of life- threatening or debilitating clinical conditions in human beings or the purpose referred to in point (5) of Article 5;
Amendment 215 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that animals belonging to the species listed in Annex II may only be used in procedures where those animals have been bred for use in procedures or for agronomic purposes.
Amendment 219 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities may grant exemptions from paragraph 1 on the basis of a veterinary justification for reasons of animal welfare or of a scientific justification.
Amendment 230 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another internationally recognised and scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an live animal, is recognised by Community legislation. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.
Amendment 246 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. The Commission shall establish the criteria for classification of procedures, on the basis of international classifications and in line with best practices developed within the European Union.
Amendment 266 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18
Article 18
Member States shall encourage the establishment of programmes for the sharing of organs and tissues of animals killed by a humane method.
Amendment 268 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that persons are authorised by the competent authority or the delegated authority before they carry out any of the following functions:
Amendment 274 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the authorisation is suspended or withdrawn, Member States shall establish a mechanism for appeals against the decision.
Amendment 279 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The permanent ethical review body that reviews protocols and procedures shall fulfil the following tasks:
Amendment 287 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, Member States shall apply the care and accommodation standardsguidelines, tailored to the scientific objective, set out in Annex IV as from the dates provided for in that Annex.
Amendment 289 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. National inspections shall be carried out by the competent authority at least twice a yearon average once a year, with the competent authority adapting the frequency of inspection on the basis of a risk analysis for each establishment.
Amendment 290 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 291 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the frequency and the extent of inspections are adequate to the number and species of animals housed, to the compliance record of the establishment with this Directive and, in the case of user establishments, to the number and types of projects carried out in those establishments. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the inspections do not jeopardise the scientific quality of the projects and the welfare of the animals, and do not take place under conditions that fail to comply with the other regulations in force.
Amendment 308 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may waive the requirement in paragraph 1(b) and permit the user establishment to submit a reduced project proposal covering only the information necessary for the ethical evaluation and elements listed in Article 41(2), provided that the project involves only procedures classified as "up to mildoderate" and does not use non-human primates.
Amendment 329 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 38 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. The competent authority carrying out the ethical evaluation shall determine, on the basis of the harm-benefit analysis referred to in point (d) of Article 37(2), whether the project should, once it has been completed, be assessed retrospectively by the competent authority.
Amendment 333 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 3
Article 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 334 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 4
Article 38 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, aAll projects involving only procedures classified as "up to mildoderate" shall be exempted from the requirement for a retrospective assessment.
Amendment 342 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point d
d) at least one person demonstrating species specific knowledge.eleted
Amendment 351 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. Any amendment or renewal of a project authorisation shall be subject to a further favourable ethical evaluation.
Amendment 358 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the decision to grant an authorisation is taken and communicated to the user establishment at the latest within 30 days from the submission of the application. Should the Member State fail to take a decision within that period, or in the case of a minor amendment, the authorisation shall be deemed to have been granted, where the project concerned involves only procedures classified as "up to mildoderate" and non-human primates are not used. In all other cases, no such presumption shall apply.
Amendment 367 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 45
Article 45
The Commission and Member States shall contribute financially to the development and, where appropriate, scientific validation of alternative approaches that could provide the same or higher level of information as that obtained in procedures using animals but that do not involve the use of animals or use fewer animals or that entail less painful procedures and shall take such other steps as they consider appropriate to encourage research in this field.
Amendment 383 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I
Annex I
Invertebrate Species referred to in Article • Cyclostomes2(2) 2(2) • Cephalopods • Decapod crustaceans
Amendment 386 #
Amendment 389 #
Amendment 394 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex V – title
Annex V – title
Amendment 395 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex V – table 1 – title
Annex V – table 1 – title
Table 1 - HumanAppropriate methods of killing fish, including gnathostomes and cyclostomes/slaughter of fish
Amendment 396 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex V – table 5 – ‘Overall rating’ column – Carbon dioxide
Annex V – table 5 – ‘Overall rating’ column – Carbon dioxide
Amendment 6 #
2008/0170(CNS)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that mothers with disabilities, who can face particular difficulties in their everyday lives, should receive greater attention from the Member States and, in particular, should systematically be offered assistance suited to their needs.
Amendment 201 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Further to the integration of formerly coupled market support into the single payment scheme, the value of payment entitlements was, in those Member States opting for a historic implementation, based on the individual level of past support. With a growing number of years elapsing since the introduction of the single payment scheme and following the successive integration of further sectors into the single payment scheme, it becomes increasingly harder to justify the legitimacy of significant individual differences in the support level which are only based on past support. For this reason Member States that chose the historic implementation model should be allowrequested under certain conditions to review the allocated payment entitlements, in consultation with the regional authorities and on the basis of an impact assessment, with a view to approximating their unit value while respecting the general principles of cCommunity law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. In this context Member States may take into account the specificities of geographical areas when fixing closer values. The levelling of payment entitlements should take place during an adequate transition period and within a limited range of reductions in order to allow farmers to reasonably adapt to the changing levels of support.
Amendment 204 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Under the 2003 reform Member States had the option to apply the single payment scheme by way of historic or regional implementation. Since then Member States have had the opportunity to evaluate the effects of their choices as regards both their economic and administrative appropriateness. Member States should therefore be given the opportunityrequested to review their initial choice in the light of their experience, in consultation with the regional authorities and on the basis of an impact assessment. For this reason, in addition to the possibility of levelling the value of payment entitlements, Member States that applied the historic model should be authorisrequested to change over to the regional model. Furthermore, Member States that chose to apply the regional model should be given the option to review their decisions under certain conditions with the aim to approximate the value of payment entitlements according to pre- established steps, while respecting the general principles of community law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. Such changes should take place during an adequate transition period and within a limited range of reductions in order to allow farmers to reasonably adapt to changing levels of support.
Amendment 208 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, while introducing a decoupled single payment scheme allowed Member States to exclude certain payments from that scheme. At the same time Article 64(3) of that Regulation provided for the revision of the options provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 5 of its Title III, in the light of market and structural developments. An analysis of the relevant experience shows that decoupling introduces flexibility in the choice of producers, enabling them to take their production decisions on the basis of profitability and market response. This is particularly the case for the arable crops, hops and seeds sectors, and to a certain extent, also the beef sector. Therefore, the partially coupled payments in these sectors should be integrated into the single payment scheme. In order for farmers in the beef sector to gradually adjust to the new support arrangements provision should be made for a phasing-in of the integration of the special premium for male animals and the slaughter premium. Since the partially coupled payments in the fruit and vegetable sectors were only recently introduced, and only as a transitional measure, no review of such schemes is necessary.
Amendment 213 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) However, as regards the suckler cow andlivestock production, and consequently the special premium for male bovine animals, the slaughter premium for calves, the slaughter premium for bovine animals other than calves, the suckler cow premium and aid for the sheep and goat sector, it appears that maintaining a minimum level of agricultural production may still be necessary for the agricultural economies in certain regions and, in particular, where farmers cannot have recourse to other economic alternatives. Against this background, Member States should have the option to maintain coupled support at the current level or, for suckler cows, sheep and goats, at a lower level. In that case, special provision should be made for the respect of the identification and registration requirements provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004, in particular with a view to secure the traceability of animals.
Amendment 246 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a a (new)
Article 2 – point a a (new)
aa) ‘larger beneficiary’ means a natural or legal person receiving more than EUR 300 000 in the form of the payments provided for in Annex I;
Amendment 268 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Any amount of direct payments to be granted in a given calendar year to a farmer thatequalling or exceedsing EUR 5 000 shall be reduced for each year until 2012 by the following percentages:
Amendment 315 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter -a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter -a (new)
(-a) amounts of EUR 10 000 or more, but less than 100 000 EUR, by 1 percentage point,
Amendment 319 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
a) amounts betweenof EUR 100 000 or more, but less thand 199 999, by 3 percentage points,
Amendment 323 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter b
(b) amounts betweenof EUR 200 000 and 299 999or more, but less than EUR 300 000, by 65 percentage points,
Amendment 327 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter c
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter c
(c) amounts of EUR 300 000 or more, by 97 percentage points.
Amendment 331 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The maximum amount of the payments provided for in Annex I shall be fixed at EUR 300 000 per holding.
Amendment 464 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. Member States that do not apply Article 68(1)(c) may usemay use, with effect from the entry into force of this regulation in 2009, the national reserve for the purpose of establishing, according to objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competition distortions, payment entitlements and support measures for farmers in areas subject to restructuring and/or development programs relating to one or the other form of public intervention, for sectors in difficulty concentrated in the most disadvantaged areas, such as the sheep and goat sectors, in order to avoid abandoning of land and production and/or in order to compensate specific disadvantages for farmers in those areas.
Amendment 476 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – subparagraph 1
Article 46 – subparagraph 1
In duly justified cases, Member States mayshall decide, by 1 August 2009 at the latest, in consultation with the regional authorities and on the basis of an impact assessment, and acting in compliance with the general principles of Community law, to move as from 2010 towards approximating the value of payment entitlements established under Chapter I to IV of Title III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. To this end payment entitlements may be made subject to progressive modifications according to at least three pre-established annual steps and objective and non- discriminatory criteria.
Amendment 480 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – subparagraph 3
Article 46 – subparagraph 3
Member States mayshall decide to apply the preceding subparagraphs at the appropriate geographical level which shall be determined according to objective and non- discriminatory criteria such as their institutional or administrative structure and/or the regional agricultural potential.
Amendment 485 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 47 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall consult the regional authorities and conduct an impact assessment on the effect of choosing the regional level for the single payment scheme.
Amendment 561 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter a a (new)
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter a a (new)
(aa) for developing organic farming,
Amendment 11 #
2007/2290(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that equality between men and women must be one of the objectives of any reform of social security systems, given the current background ofand pension systems, while stressing that inequalities in this respect are fundamentally of an indirect nature, resulting from persisting inequality on the employment market, in pay and career prospects and in the way family and domestic responsibilities are shared and can therefore only be corrected by more global measures;
Amendment 17 #
2007/2290(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that it is necessary to exercise prudence regarding the individualisation of social security entitlements since, although they are frequently presented as a way of encouraging women to be independent, they may in practice prove disadvantageous to women, particularly to women on a low income;
Amendment 17 #
2007/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas although family unity is mentioned first in the hierarchy of criteria applied in the Dublin Regulation, that provision is not often applied and the concept of ‘family member’ is defined too restrictively,
Amendment 24 #
2007/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Asks the Commission to consider ways of providing UNHCR with direct financing instead ofto complement project-based funding in order to enable it to enhance its monitoring and advisory work in the EU and continue developing methods intended to support national authorities in their efforts to improve the quality of their decision- making;
Amendment 29 #
2007/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to provide for a mechanism to stop transfers of asylum applicants to Member States that do not guarantee full and fair treatment of their claims and to take systematic measures against those States;
Amendment 39 #
2007/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets that the definition of a family member under the current Regulation is too restrictive and asks the Commission to extend the present definition to include at least dependants such as close relativesll close relatives, particularly those who have no other family support, and adult children unable to care for themselves;
Amendment 46 #
2007/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Deplores the systematic use of detention by certain Member States for asylum seekers awaiting transfer to the country responsible for examining their application; believes that such individuals should not be placed in detention;
Amendment 1 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 of 8 February 19931920/2006 of the European Parliament and onf the establishment of aCouncil of 12 December 2006 on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction12, which recasts the earlier legislation,
Amendment 4 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas a more searching dialogue between and with the various components of civil society (at transnational, national, regional and local level) and theon a European institutionsscale should be promoted, and having regard to the benefits which a proper, effective dialogue with civil society may contribute towith a view to improving the formulation, implementation and assessment of decisions relating to drugs policies at both Member-State and EU level,
Amendment 8 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. having regard in particular to the breadth of experience which civil society can bring to particular areaspects of drugs policies, such as prevention, the provision of information, rehabilitation treatmentssupport for those emerging from dependence, and social reintegration,
Amendment 10 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the priority objective for the 2005-2012 EU drugs strategy is to strengthen the role played by civil society in relation to drugsncludes the need for adequate consultation with civil society,
Amendment 13 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. having regard to the very favourable reception given by most organisations that responded to the Commission consultation to the idea of thematic linking of existing networks,
Amendment 16 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 19 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the importancfundamental role of civil society as a key player in drugs policiesin the development, implementation and evaluation of drugs policies; stresses in particular the added value represented by their experience on the ground, their capacity for innovation and their potential in terms of information exchange and best practice;
Amendment 21 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 25 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 31 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the importance of setting up the Civil Society Drugs Forum as a first step towards the more practical and constructive involvement of European civil-society associations in Community activities relating to drugs policies to prevent drug use and combat drugs;
Amendment 32 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets the fact that certain associations have criticised the lack of transparency in the criteria used for selecting the associations taking part in the Civil Society Drugs Foruthe process of selecting participants in the Civil Society Drugs Forum has been perceived by certain organisations as lacking in transparency, and calls on the Commission to think about how to remedy this problem;
Amendment 37 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that the purpose of the Civil Society Drugs Forum is not to create an assembly intended to voice various ideologies but to create a practical means of supporting the drawing up and the implementation of drugs policies to prevent drug use and combat drugs on the basis of practical advice;
Amendment 40 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the limitedpoor participation in the Civil Society Drugis Forum on the part of organisations representing the new Member States; insists upon the need for civil society in the new Member States to be made aware and more extensively involved, in view of the importance of those countries in an enlarged EU;
Amendment 45 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Hopes that dialogue with civil society will have a tangible impact on the EU’s decision-making process; considers, therefore, that dialogue with civil societythe former should be given institutional status as a means of conducting consult, inter alia through: continuous - official participation by the Forum in the evaluation of the Action Plan for 2005-2012 that will be carried out by the Commission in 2008; - more far-reaching and transparent relations with the EU institutions in connection with the objectives set out in the EU’s 2005-2012 drugs strategy and with future initiatives; Member States; - the permanent presence of the Forum at meetings held by the Union’s Presidency with national drug action coordinators; - permanent contacts with Parliament, and the latter’s holding of an annual conference with the Forum; - strong synergy between the activities of the Forum and those of the European. Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction (OEDT), which could devote a section of its annual report to the activities of European civil society;
Amendment 48 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 52 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 54 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 56 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 61 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 65 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. encourages thematic linking of existing networks, either in the margins of the Civil Society Drugs Forum or in the form of working parties or subgroups within the framework of the latter;
Amendment 72 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls upon all parties involved at both EU and Member-State level to pay greater attention to the innovative aspects which civil society’s experience may contribute to the achievement of the objectives set out in the EU’s 2005-2012 drugs strategy, with particular reference to policies on damage- reduction policies, rehabilitation policies, support for those emerging from dependence and social- reintegration policies;
Amendment 74 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Attaches importance to strengthening the dialogue at European level with consumers’ associationorganisations representing drug users – a necessary aspect of any response to the challenges of social reintegration and rehabilitationproviding support for those emerging from dependence;
Amendment 76 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for enhanced involvement of civil society in preventing the use of psychotropic substances in the workplace and in providing information on such use; on the Member States and the Commission to promote initiatives by civil society aimed at: - reinforcing prevention and information on the risks of using drugs and psychotropic substances in the workplace and among young people; - treating drug addicts who are in prison; - putting in place detailed prevention plans to combat the use of drugs and psychotropic substances in at-risk urban neighbourhoods, particularly among young people, with the help of social and trade union organisations, ; - organising information campaigns on drugs and their damaging effects on health, in collaboration with parents’, students’ and teachers’ organisations; - implementing damage-reduction policies by direct contact work in the streets;
Amendment 78 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 82 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 86 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 93 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 95 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 108 #
2007/2212(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 107 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Points out that food education,to the role which young farmers can provide, fosters good eating habits to the benefit of humanlay in promoting the benefits to public health of a healthy and society in generalvaried diet;
Amendment 144 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that thoughtsteps should be givtaken to using alternative energy sources derived from agriculturepromote the use of all conceivable energy sources on farms;
Amendment 48 #
2007/0228(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This Directive should provide for a flexible demand-driven entry system, based on objective criteria such as a minimum salary threshold comparable with the wage levels in the Member States and on professional qualifications. The definition of a common minimum denominator for the national wage threshold is necessary to ensure a minimum level of harmonisation in the admission conditions throughout the EU. Member States should fix their national threshold accordingly to the situation of their respective labour markets and their general immigration policiesprofessional qualifications. Application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is necessary to ensure that nationals and third-country nationals are treated equally.
Amendment 62 #
2007/0228(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point b
Article 2 – point b
(b) "highly qualified employment" means the exercise of genuine and effective work under the direction of someone else for which a person is paid andpaid work for which higher education qualifications or at least threfive years of equivalent professional experience is required;
Amendment 68 #
2007/0228(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point g
Article 2 – point g
(g) "higher education qualification" stands for any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority attesting the successful completion of a higher education programme, namely a set of courses provided by an educational establishment recognised as a higher education institution by the State in which it is situated. These qualifications are taken into account, for the purposes of this directive, on condition that the studies needed to acquire them lasted at least threfive years;
Amendment 71 #
2007/0228(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h
Article 2 – point h
(h) "higher professional qualifications" means qualifications attested by evidence of higher education qualifications or of at least threfive years of equivalent professional experience;
Amendment 79 #
2007/0228(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) staying in a Member State as applicants for international protection or under temporary protection schemes or who, in either instance, have applied for a residence permit and on whose legal status no decision has yet been taken;
Amendment 90 #
2007/0228(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. In addition to the conditions stipulated in paragraph 1, the gross monthly salary specified in the work contract or binding job offer must not be inferior to a national salary threshold defined and published for the purpose by the Member States which shall be at least three times the minimum gross monthly wage as set by national law. Member States where minimum wages are not defined shall set the national salary threshold to be at least three times the minimum income under which citizens of the Member State concerned are entitled to social assistance in that Member State, or to be in line with applicable collective agreements or practices in the relevant occupation branchesthe wage payable to a national doing equivalent work.
Amendment 13 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas conventional and organic agriculture must remain the favoured modes of production in the European Union, in the light of criteria of social, environmental and economic performance,
Amendment 17 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas developments in biotechnologies have the potential to yield many benefits for agriculture, such as increased yi: - better-quality, healthy food (probiotics, lactic bacteria, anti-allergy products, non- toxic products); - new non-food products: second- generation biofuelds, better product quality,green chemistry (biolubricants, pharmacopeia, cosmetics, wood treatment products, starch-derived fibres, etc.); - reduced use of chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuels and reduced soil erosion and pollution; - preservation of biodiversity; - improved natural functions of ecosystems (organic matter in soils, water cycle, etc.),
Amendment 35 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Community legislation is sometimeregarding the part of biotechnology which concerns genetically modified organisms is interpreted differently by Member States and its implementation is therefore not always consistent across all Member States; whereas there is a clear need to develop a common approach, particularly with regard to the coexistence of genetically modified crops and Commission has been incapable of presenting common coexistence measures; whereas this incapacity bears out the impossibility of developing new products without posing risks to the environment and health and above all without affecting conventional andor organic crops which would provide the basis for choice for both farmers and consumergrowing in the vicinity of crops consisting of genetically modified organisms,
Amendment 49 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, before being placed on the market, genetically modified products for use in agriculture necessarily have to pass very stringent assessments and the present authorisation process is slow and bureaucratichave to undergo an assessment procedure; whereas the decision taken unanimously by the Council of Ministers for the Environment on 8 December 2008 to ask the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to revise the procedures for assessing applications for authorisation of genetically modified organisms so as to take account of socioeconomic criteria was opportune; whereas this revision is justified by the need to assess the environmental and health risks over a longer period,
Amendment 72 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas 114 million hectares of genetically modified crops were grown worldwide in 2007 and this hectarage is very likely tocould be substantially increased in the following years, while the area under genetically modified cultivation in the EU is comparatively low, because the supposed benefits of this new technology have not been fully proven and the people of Europe have certain suspicions about it, being increasingly concerned about environmental protection and sustainable development issues,
Amendment 85 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Encourages efforts to develop biotechnologies in the EU as one way of making agriculture viable and capable of providing a livingpreserving the quality of life of farmers, and takes the view that these biotechnologies facilitatemust permit the development of sustainable methods of production, increased yield, higher quality and more diverse products with reduced use of fertilisers and rational use of water; underlines the need for c which simultaneously combine economic, environvmentional and organic agriculture to remain successful on their marketssocial performance;
Amendment 89 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers it important to acknowledge that biotechnology could present real opportunities in various fields; believes that, beyond the traditional agricultural products of food, feed and fibre, entiretakes the view that these fields concern the sectors of food for human consumption and health (probiotics, cancer-fighting lactic bacteria, products derived from metagenomics, etc.), animal feedingstuffs, renewable energy and, lastly, novelew products will emerge; (biolubricants, pharmacopeia, cosmetics, wood treatments, new materials derived from starch and gluten, fibres, etc.);
Amendment 96 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that biotechnology applications may helpassociated with agronomic and ecological sciences may assist the emergence of new types of sustainable production which will make it possible to reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers in crop cultivation;
Amendment 99 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need to work towards ensuring that, in the near future, an increased variety of better and healthier food and feedstuffs could also be produced in less favoured areas, such as in restricted climate conditions, in dry or moist conditions and on harsh soil, and notes that the correctgreater cooperation between rich regions and the poorest regions, making use of biotechnology, could be an important factor in these developments; permit genuinely sustainable development based on exploiting local resources and preserving biodiversity and ecosystems;
Amendment 113 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the decisive importance, in the approval process, of protecting not only human health and the environment in the approval process and underlines the use of objective scientific criteria in this respectbut also new aspects, particularly those of a socioeconomic nature, in accordance with the statements made by Ministers for the Environment in their unanimous decision of 8 December 2008; underlines the use of objective scientific criteria and observance of a sufficient assessment period to prove that no risk exists;
Amendment 123 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the Commission's recent report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming and urges better harmonisation of rules and conditions within the EU; emphasises the importance of the right of farmers to choose between traditional, organic and genetically modified organism production and, therefore, the need to establish clear, uniform and transparent coexistence measures that enable farmers to coexist with neighbours using different farming methodsnotes that, to date, the Commission has not wished to submit harmonised coexistence measures for the growing of genetically modified organised and/or has been incapable of doing so, which implicitly proves the practical impossibility of developing these new products without risks to the environment and health and without their affecting other types of cultivation, whether conventional or organic;
Amendment 130 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Reaffirms that, in accordance with Article 26a(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Member States may adopt national measures on crop coexistence to enable them to 'take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products';
Amendment 131 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Considers that the rules on crop coexistence should contain clear provisions on liability which take account of the 'polluter pays' principle; calls on the Commission to draw up a binding legal framework in relation to liability which would cover the contamination of conventional or organic crops by GMOs;
Amendment 134 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Stresses that the legislation currently in force allows the Member States to impose a total ban on the cultivation of GMOs in geographical areas which have special agronomical or environmental characteristics or are particularly important in terms of maintaining biodiversity or specific agricultural practices;
Amendment 135 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Urges the Commission to adopt, as soon as possible, specific labelling thresholds for the presence of genetically modified seeds in conventional seeds on the basis of Article 21(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC;
Amendment 140 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Asks for clarificationStresses the importance of establishing strict rules concerning liability for damages incurred in the growing and using of biotechnological products with regard to: who is liable, what can be claimed and, under what circumstances a claim can be made and to what extent the authorities are aware of the risks being run;
Amendment 148 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that the existence of publicly funded independent research must be guaranteed and R&D activity in all forms of production, particularly small biotechnology undertakings and plant- technology centres, must be equitably supported in order to maintain maximum competitiveness at the various levels of the food production chain;
Amendment 159 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. FearObserves that the existing complex and extensivprocedures for the implementation of the Community legislation on biotechnological trials and the long approval procedure for placing inventions on the market are creating real obstacles to European research and may lead to research activities and human resources being moved outsidecan be simplified but only on condition that it does not call into question the guarantee that these inventions will not create any risks to health and the environment and will not cause socioeconomic problems for citizens of the EU;
Amendment 160 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Considers that, for the part of biotechnology concerning genetically modified organisms, it must be possible for research - particularly public research - to be performed in a closed environment when their use has the purpose of promoting health; observes that it is currently difficult to envisage their being cultivated in open fields, in view of: - the insurmountable problem of their coexistence with conventionally and organically farmed crops, - inadequate knowledge of their medium- and long-term impact on health, the environment and socioeconomic factors, - the problems of biodiversity and economic monopoly which they pose;
Amendment 40 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 10 − paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Anyone affected by an exchange of data carried out in accordance with the present framework decision may claim the right to data protection, including blocking, correction, deletion and access to information pertaining to them, as well as access to any means of redress to which they are entitled under the legislation of the issuing State or the executing State.
Amendment 41 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 12
The executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this Framework Decision and provided that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of law of the executing State. This Article shall not create an obligation to take coercive measures.
Amendment 42 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 12 − subparagraph 1 a (new)
The issuing authority may also require the executing authority to: (a) preserve the confidentiality of the investigation and its substance except to the extent necessary for the execution of the warrant; (b) allow a competent authority from the issuing State or an interested party designated by the issuing authority to be present at the execution of the warrant and to have access, under the same conditions as the executing authority, to any object, document or item of data obtained on that occasion; (c) deposit the names of the people through whose hands the evidence has passed between the execution of the warrant and its transfer to the issuing State.
Amendment 45 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 15 − paragraph 3
3. Unless eione of ther grounds for postponement under Article 16 exisjustifies it or the executing authority has the objects, documents or data sought already in its possession, the executing authority shall take possession of the objects, documents or data without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 4,as early as possible and no later than 60 days after the receipt of the EEWuropean Evidence Warrant by the competent executing authority, without prejudice to paragraph 4.
Amendment 46 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 15 − paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In the absence of an action brought in accordance with Article 18 and unless one of the grounds for postponement referred to in Article 16 justifies it, the executing State shall transfer to the issuing State the objects, documents or data obtained by virtue of the European Evidence Warrant, immediately where the latter are already under the control of the executing authority or, where this is not the case, as early as possible and no later than 30 days following the date on which the executing authority takes possession of the evidence. When the objects, documents or data obtained are transferred, the executing authority shall state whether it requires them to be returned to the State of execution as soon as they cease to be needed by the issuing State.
Amendment 47 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 15 − paragraph 4
4. When it is not practicable in a specific caseunder exceptional circumstances for the competent executing authority to meet the deadline set out in paragraphs 2 or 3 respectivelythis Article, it shall without delay inform Eurojust and the competent authority of the issuing State by any meansin writing, giving the reasons for the delay and the estimated time needed for the action to be taken.
Amendment 48 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 15 − paragraph 5
Amendment 49 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 15 − paragraph 6
Amendment 50 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 17 a (new)
Article 17a Subsequent use of evidence The use of the evidence acquired pursuant to this Framework Decision shall in no way prejudice the rights of the defence in subsequent criminal proceedings. These rights shall be fully respected, in particular as regards the admissibility of the evidence, the obligation to disclose that evidence to the defence and the ability of the defence to challenge that evidence.