21 Amendments of Renate WEBER related to 2013/2024(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Treaty of Lisbon brought important positive elements to theand the Charter of Fundamental Rights have strengthened the constitutional basis of EU Institutions and Member States in reaching the shared objective to transform the EU in an area of freedom, security and justice, but deplores certain shortcomings in its implementation; is no longer willing to accept that the Council and the Commission, in many instances, continue to act as if the Treaty of Lisbon had not entered into forceconsiders that this objective requires that EU Treaties and laws are applied equally in the EU and that consequently opt-outs or special regimes should be removed; is no longer willing to accept that the Council and the Commission, in many instances, continue to act as if the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights had not entered into force including by ignoring the role and legitimacy of the European Parliament and of national parliaments; requests the fulfilment of the obligation to inform the Parliament ‘immediately and fully at all stages of the procedure’ leading to the conclusion of international agreements; regrets the unacceptable delays in bringing the acts of the former third pillar in line with the Treaty of Lisbon; calls for a case-by-case assessment of the former third pillar acts with regard to how they impact on fundamental rights, with a view to bringing them in line with the new hierarchy of norms of basic, delegated and implementing acts;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that the use of the ordinary legislative procedure has brought law-making closer to the people and has given the European Parliament, the only democratically elected Union institution, a greater degree of influence, underlines that this procedure should be further expanded in the future Treaty revisions and that stronger transparency in the decision-making process should be brought, notably in relation to first reading agreements and trilogues, so to ensure that the right of access to documents and to information is guaranteed as foreseen by the Treaties;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the era of large-scale multiannual programmes based on the intergovernmental approach is overcan be reviewed by allowing more space for flexibility, notably to react to urgent issues or EP requests for action or proposals, given the array of legal bases provided for by the Treaties in the policy spheres covered by the area of freedom, security and justice, the scope for the Commission to make use of its right to propose legislation and its stated ambition to do so; believes the Commission should anyway develop and present at the beginning of its term its programme of action, that shall be reviewed and finalized on the basis of the requests of the EP and the Council and then implemented with clear deadlines;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. calls for a strengthened cooperation and dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament, as well as between EU institutions and bodies in general and national parliaments, so to ensure that information on EU initiatives is made available directly and promptly by EU institutions and bodies to national parliaments as much as possible, for instance by taking part in national parliaments plenary and committee hearings;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Underlines that the only way to bring citizens closer to the EU is to proceed to a reform of the Treaties so to strengthen its democratic and institutional structure on the federal model and to enhance the participation of citizens to the decision-making process;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls urgently for measures to address the so-called Copenhagen dilemma, describing a situation in which the Union sets high standards for candidate countries to meet but lacks tools for Member States; announces its intention to set up a Copenhagen Commission within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairscalls on the Commission to adopt a decision creating a new mechanism to implement article 2 TEU on the European fundamental values, including in the view of applying article 7 TEU in the European Union; calls on the EU institutions also to prepare Treaty amendments to further strengthen fundamental rights protection and promotion in the EU;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. FearsWarns about the fact that the economic crisis may develop into a crisis of democracyexperienced in Europe and abroad is accompanied by a crisis of democracy in some EU Member States and believes that strong political leadership at national and European level is necessary to defend democratic achievements, the Rule of law, fundamental rights, equality and protection of minorities;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. strongly condemns the blockage and delays experienced by the EU in the negotiations of accession to the ECHR and calls EU institutions and Member States to accelerate the procedures for the EU accession to the ECHR and to reject any future further attempt to undermine the ECHR role, competences and powers in relation to citizens' and residents' human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers the continued blockage of the review of the Access to Documents Regulation unacceptable and calls the Commission and the Council to ensure that the right of access to documents and information, enshrined in the EU Charter of fundamental rights and in the Treaties, is respected, enacted, developed and promoted;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. RecognisUnderlines that initiatives in the field of the mutual recognition of legal situations, judgments and documents play a very important role in this respectand of their validity and effects play a paramount role in ensuring that citizens can fully enjoy their rights in the EU across national boundaries, as mutual recognition, while leavesing the legal systems of Member States unchanged, butstrongly reduces the unreasonable and intolerable bureaucratic and red tape inconveniences which differences in national regulations cause for individual citizens; citizens and their families in the EU, notably when they exercise their fundamental right to free movement;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that mutual recognition requires that citizens and legal professionals trust each other's legal institutions; notes that such trust can be built upon the strengthening of a truly European legal culture that is fully respectful of the common principles of subsidiary and of judicial independence, the establishment ofdemocracy, Rule of Law, fundamental rights, of judicial independence; underlines that the strengthening and monitoring of such common standards and an understanding of other legal systems plays a very important role in underpinning mutual recognition and trust; points out that mutual recognition and trust can lead to gradual, the mutual knowledge and exchange of best practices and enhanced trust between Member States changes in national civil law traditions through an exchange of best practices between Member State guarantee that civil law is applied at national level in a way to guarantee and benefit citizens' rights instead of creating unreasonable and complicated obstacles denying or limiting their rights;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Calls on the European Commission to pursue existing plans to make proposals for an all-encompassing approach for the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents, in order for European citizens and residents and their families to carry throughout the European Union existing rights attached to civil statuses already legally recognised in several European jurisdictions;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Believes that mutual trust between the Member States must be strengthened by harmonizing the respect of fundamental rights in relation to criminal procedures, taking common measures to ensure a good administration of justice and of prisons, which are often at the root of the lack of trust between Member States, and that mutual recognition and harmonisation of EU criminal law cannot progress without serious feed-back on the implementation of these rules at Member State level;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Believes that the evaluation of the implementation of the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law provides the opportunity to adopt further European legislation to combat all forms of hate crimes;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Believes that an effective justice system is a powerful driver for, fair, timely and fundamental rights compliant civil and criminal justice and prisons system is a powerful driver for mutual trust and mutual recognition in the EU, as well as to guarantee democracy, the Rule of Law, equality, as well as a prosperous economy;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Notes with satisfaction the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) and the EU policy cycle on organised and serious international crime; points out, however, that further progress needs to be made, for instance in the fields of cybercrime, protection of critical infrastructure and the fights against corruption, money laundering, terrorist funding and the trade in illegal firearms, both internally and externally; is extremely concerned about the mass surveillance of citizens operated by the US and EU Member States and calls for strong EU action against third country and third party surveillance threatening the internal security of the EU;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Believes that a proper evaluation of the implementation, effects and concrete results of the policies and legislation in the internal security field, as well as the analysis of the security threats to be addressed is an, are the essential prerequisites for an effective ISS;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Acknowledges that cross-border crime isbelieves that the current 'landscape' onf the increase in the EU and therefore underlines the importance of European law enforcement information exchange; believes that the current ‘landscape’ of the different instruments, channels and toolsdifferent instruments, channels and tools available to law enforcement to counter Europe-wide criminality is complicated and scattered, leading to inefficient use of the instruments available and to inadequate democratic oversight at EU level; calls for a future- oriented vision on how to shape and optimise law enforcement data sharingactivities, and their democratic and judicial oversight, in the EU, while guaranteeing fundamental rights including a robust level of data protection;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Profoundly deplores the low quality of the policy-making process; observes that the definition of problems, the discussion of possible solutions and the choice between possible options usually does not follow a sequential order, as would be correct, but is rather often done simultaneously; calls on the Commission first to present reports on the issues to be addressed, then to invite a discussion on possible solutions and finally to present legislative proposals; calls on its competent parliamentary bodies to develop a system - modelled on similar systems in national parliaments - whereby the EP services produce independent Study or research dossiers on each legislative proposal examined by the EP where these are analysed in detail in relation to: current legal situation; changes introduced; effects; legal context at national level; experts, stakeholders and civil society views; compatibility with international treaties and fundamental rights, etc.;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Proposes a systematic, objective and independent ex-post tracking and evaluation of new legislation that should also assess the continuing need for legislation in this areaand on how it is implemented in the Member States, that should also assess the need for new legislation in certain sectors or vice-versa the need for proper and better implementation at national level, to be pursued by the EU institutions with the Member States, via guidelines, infringement proceedings, etc.;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Welcomes the initiative of the Commission in drawing up the EU Justice Scoreboard which aims at ensuring a high- quality justice system in the area of civil, commercial and administrative law since, at the end of the day, the concrete application of laws is in the hands of the courts; calls for the justice scoreboard exercise to be enlarged to assess all justice areas, including criminal justice and all horizontal issues, as fundamental rights are directly impacted in this field; proposes that data regarding the state of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, and the fulfilment of European values (Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)) in all Member States be included as well, notably in connection to the development of the "new mechanism" in this field;