644 Amendments of Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON
Amendment 1 #
2013/2230(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the Court’s comment that, while the agency carries out plausibility checks, it does not generally demand supporting documents, and highlights Frontex’s reply to the effect that, as the beneficiaries are the national border guard authorities, their statements are reliable; calls on Frontex to remedy this state of affairs and consider applying more effective measures to deal with such financing situations, such as flat-rate billing; welcomes the efforts made by the director of the agency to reach a compromise whereby a lump sum system is put in place to satisfy all sides;
Amendment 1 #
2013/2229(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 2 #
2013/2229(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 3 #
2013/2229(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the Commission’s proposal to merge CEPOL with Europol was rejected by a large majority in the European Parliament and in the Council and that an initiative by 25 Member States has proposed an amendment to the Council Decision on the seat of CEPOL, by a regulation to be adopted under the codecision procedure;
Amendment 42 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Notes that Protocol 6, annexed to the Treaties, on the location of the seats of the institutions, decided by common agreement of the governments of the Member States, imposes on Parliament its three working places; notes the call expressed in its resolution of 17 April 2013 on the 2011 discharge for "the Secretary-General and the Bureau to provide Members with up- to-date figures and information on thedocument received from the Secretary-General, ‘The three places of work of the European Parliament – financial and, environmental and regional impacts of the multiple seat arrangement" that followed Parliament’s resolution of 6 February 2013 on the guidelines for the 2014 budget proceduregeographic dispersion', which was prepared on 30 August 2013;
Amendment 44 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Recalls that significant historical reasons motivated the seat of the Parliament to be established in its current three places of work and that the question of determination of the seat of an Union institution is the exclusive competence of the Member States; notes in this respect that any decision to change the seats arrangement of Parliament would require a change of the Treaties, a decision which would have to be taken unanimously by the Member States;
Amendment 48 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 4
Paragraph 43 – indent 4
– additional costs resulting from the Strasbourg and Luxembourg sites have been declared separately;
Amendment 50 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Emphasises the fact that 10,703 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year would be saved if Strasbourg (10 235) and Luxembourg (468) were no longer used as places of workrelating to Parliament's activities would be saved if the three places of work were placed on the same footing; notes that this environmental impact of the geographic dispersion of Parliament in terms of carbon emissions accounts for 11,16 % of Parliament's total carbon footprint in 2011; takes the view that CO2 emissions relating to journeys by Members from their constituencies across the EU ought not to be much different wherever the places of work are;
Amendment 7 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37 a (new)
Citation 37 a (new)
– having regard to the Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-28 on Signals Intelligence Activities of 17th January 2014,
Amendment 8 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40 a (new)
Citation 40 a (new)
– having regard to the working document 1 on the US and EU Surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens fundamental rights,
Amendment 9 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40 b (new)
Citation 40 b (new)
– having regard to the working document 3 on the relation between the surveillance practices in the EU and the US and the EU data protection provisions,
Amendment 10 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40 c (new)
Citation 40 c (new)
– having regard to the working document 4 on US Surveillance activities with respect to EU data and its possible legal implications on transatlantic agreements and cooperation,
Amendment 11 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40 d (new)
Citation 40 d (new)
– having regard to the working document 5 on Democratic oversight of Member State intelligence services and of EU intelligence bodies,
Amendment 19 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas mutual trust and understanding are key factors in the transatlantic dialogue, partnership and relations;
Amendment 24 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in September 2001 the world entered a new phase which resulted in the fight against terrorism being listed among the top priorities of most governments; whereas the revelations based on leaked documents from Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor, put democratically electedput political leaders under an obligation to address the challenges of the increasing capabilities of intelligence agencies in surveillance activities and their implications for the rule of law in a democratic society;
Amendment 68 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas, under the ECHR, Member States’ agencies and even private parties acting in the field of national security under certain circumstances also have to respect the rights enshrined therein, be they of their own citizens or of citizens of other States; whereas this also goes for cooperation with other States’ authorities in the field of national security;
Amendment 71 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas the extra-territorial application by a third country of its laws, regulations and other legislative or executive instruments in situations falling under the jurisdiction of the EU or its Member States may impact on the established legal order and the rule of law, or even violate international or EU law, including the rights of natural and legal persons, taking into account the extent and the declared or actual aim of such an application; whereas, in these exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to take action at the EU level to ensure that the rule of law, and the rights of natural and legal persons are respected within the EU, in particularfor example by removing, neutralising, blocking or otherwise countering the effects of the foreign legislation concerned;
Amendment 72 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
Amendment 74 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)
Recital R a (new)
Ra. whereas the transfer of data is not geographically limited and especially in terms of increasing globalisation and worldwide communication the EU legislator is confronted with new challenges in terms of protecting personal data and communication, therefore it is of utmost importance to foster legal frameworks on common standards;
Amendment 75 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R b (new)
Recital R b (new)
Rb. whereas the mass collection of personal data for commercial purposes and in the fight against terror and serious transnational crime put at risk the personal data and privacy rights of EU citizens;
Amendment 76 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas the US data protection legal framework does notshould ensure an adequate level of protection for EU citizens;
Amendment 77 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U a (new)
Recital U a (new)
Ua. whereas in its working document 4 on US Surveillance activities with respect to EU data and its possible legal implications on transatlantic agreements and cooperation of 12 December 2013 the Rapporteurs expressed doubts and concerns as to the adequacy of the Safe Harbour and called on the Commission to end the adequacy of Safe Harbour and to find new legal solutions;
Amendment 85 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ a (new)
Recital AJ a (new)
AJa. whereas terrorist finance tracking is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism financing and serious crime, allowing counter terrorism investigators to discover links between targets of investigation and other potential suspects connected with wider terrorist networks suspected of financing terrorism;
Amendment 86 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AK
Recital AK
Amendment 88 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AK a (new)
Recital AK a (new)
AKa. whereas the Commission outlined in its communication on a European terrorist finance tracking system (TFTS) that an own system would decrease the dependence from foreign intelligence providers and could strengthen the EU's own analytical capacity to track and identify terrorists through financial transactions whilst upholding and safeguarding the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union;
Amendment 90 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
Recital AM
AM. whereas during the LIBE delegation to Washington of 28-31 October 2013 the delegation met with the US Department of the Treasury; whereas the US Treasury officially stated that since the entry into force of the TFTP Agreethe US government (the NSA is in that sense considered part of the government it) hads not had access to data from SWIFT in the EU except within the framework of the TFTP; whereas the US Treasury refused to comment on whether SWIFT data would have been accessed outside TFTP by any obeen collecting and processing SWIFT data in any other way than as recognised in the agreement, whereas the US Department of the Treasury also gave assurances in relation to access to SWIFT formatted messages in accordance with other legal tools in place; whereas ther US government body or departDepartment of the Treasury did not comment or n whether the US administrationor not it was aware of NSA mass surveillance activities; whereas on 18 Dec24 September 2013 Mr Glenn GreenwEuropol and SWIFT officialds stated before the LIBE Committee inquiry that the NSA and GCHQ had targeted SWIFT networksre were no indications for a breach of the TFTP Agreement by the NSA;
Amendment 93 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AP
Recital AP
AP. whereas the Joint Review fails to mention the fact that iArticle 13 of the agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the cause of proceassieng of personal data for intelligence purposes, under US law, non- US citizens do not enjoy any judicial or administrative avenue to protect their rights, and constitutional protections are only granted to US persons; whereas this lack of judicial or administrative rights nullifies the protections for EU citizens laid down in the existing PNR agreementer name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security allows any individual regardless of nationality, country or origin, or place of residence, whose personal data and personal information has been processed and used in a manner inconsistent with the PNR Agreement, to seek effective administrative and judicial redress in accordance with US law;
Amendment 94 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AR
Recital AR
AR. whereas the purpose of this general agreement is to establish the legal framework for all transfers of personal data between the EU and US for the sole purposes of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, including terrorism, in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; whereas negotiations were authorised by the Council on 2 December 2010; whereas this agreement is of utmost importance and it would act as the basis to facilitate data transfer in the context of police and judicial cooperation and in criminal matters;
Amendment 95 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AS
Recital AS
AS. whereas this agreement should provide for clear and precise legally binding data- processing principles and should in particular recognise EU citizens’' right to judicial access, rectification and erasure of their personal data in the US, as well as the right to an efficient administrative and judicial redress mechanism for EU citizens in the US and independent oversight of the data- processing activities;
Amendment 124 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that recent revelations in the press by whistleblowers and journalists, together with the expert evidence given during this inquiry, have resulted in compelling evidence of the existence of far-reaching, complex and highly technologically advanced systems designed by US and some Member States’ intelligence services to collect, store and analyse communication and location data and metadata of all citizens around the world on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate and non-suspicion-based manner; recalls the importance of strengthening the existing structures in the Member States against mass surveillance; therefore considers of utmost importance a decentralised structure for the purpose of data retention;
Amendment 127 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points specifically to US NSA intelligence programmes allowing for the mass surveillance of EU citizens through direct access to the central servers of leading US internet companies (PRISM programme), the analysis of content and metadata (Xkeyscore programme), the circumvention of online encryption (BULLRUN), access to computer and telephone networks and access to location data, as well as to systems of the UK intelligence agency GCHQ such as its upstream surveillance activity (Tempora programme) and decryption programme (Edgehill); believes that the existence of programmes of a similar nature, even if on a more limited scale, is likely in other EU countries such as France (DGSE), Germany (BND) and Sweden (FRA);
Amendment 135 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. States that trust has been profoundly shaken: trust between the two transatlantic partners, trust among EU Member States, trust between citizens and their governments, trust in the respect of the rule of law, and trust in the security of IT services and communication; believes that in order to rebuild trust in all these dimensions a comprehensive plan is urgently neededof the utmost urgency;
Amendment 142 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls EU's firm belief in the need to strike the right balance between security measures and the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights, while ensuring the utmost respect for privacy and data protection;
Amendment 152 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Questions the compatibility of some Member States’ mapossivble economic espionage activities with the EU internal market and competition law as enshrined in Title I and Title VII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; reaffirms the principle of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4 paragraph 3 of the Treaty on European Union and the principle that the Member States shall ‘refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives’;
Amendment 157 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 161 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is adamant that secret laws, treaties and courts violate the rule of law; pPoints out that any judgment of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a non-EU state authorising, directly or indirectly, surveillance activities such as those examined by this inquiry may not be automatically recognised or enforced, but must be submitted individually to the appropriate national procedures on mutual recognition and legal assistance, including rules imposed by bilateral agreements;
Amendment 165 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that the abovementioned concerns are exacerbated by rapid technological and societal developments; considers that, since internet and mobile devices are everywhere in modern daily life (‘'ubiquitous computing’') and the business model of most internet companies is based on the processing of personal data of all kinds that puts at risk the integrity of the person, the scale of this problem is unprecedented;
Amendment 167 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regards it as a clear finding, as emphasised by the technology experts who testified before the inquiry, that at the current stage of technological development there is no guarantee, either for EU public institutions or for citizens, that their IT security or privacy can be protected from intrusion by well-equipped third countries or EU intelligence agencies (‘no 100% IT security’); notes that this alarming situation can only be remedied if Europeans are willing to dedicate sufficient resources, both human and financial, to preserving Europe’'s independence and self-reliance;
Amendment 172 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Strongly rejects the notion that these issuall issues related to mass surveillance programmes are purely a matter of national security and therefore the sole competence of Member States; recalls a recent ruling of the Court of Justice according to which ‘although it is for Member States to take the appropriate measures to ensure their internal and external security, the mere fact that a decision concerns State security cannot result in European Union law being inapplicable’38 ; recalls further that the protection of the privacy of all EU citizens is at stake, as are the security and reliability of all EU communication networks; believes therefore that discussion and action at EU level is not only legitimate, but also a matter of EU autonomy and sovereignty; __________________ 38 No 1 BvR 518/02 of 4 April 2006. No 1 BvR 518/02 of 4 April 2006.
Amendment 190 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the US authorities and the EU Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and bulkmass processing of personal data for intelligence;
Amendment 205 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on certain EU Member States, including the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, to revise whereif necessary their national legislation and practices governing the activities of intelligence services so as to ensure that they are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and comply with their fundamental rights obligations as regards data protection, privacy and presumption of innocence; in particular, given the extensive media reports referring to mass surveillance in the UK, would emphasise that the current legal framework which is made up of a ‘complex interaction’ between three separate pieces of legislation – the Human Rights Act 1998, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – should be revised;
Amendment 215 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Member States immediately to fulfil their positive obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to take measures to protect their citizens from surveillance contrary to its requiremenwhich violates human rights, including when the aim thereof is to safeguard national security, undertaken by third states and to ensure that the rule of law is not weakened as a result of extraterritorial application of a third country’s law;
Amendment 217 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on Member States to take appropriate action immediately, including court action, against the breach of their sovereignty, and thereby the violation of general public international law, perpetrated through the mass surveillance programmes; calls further on EU Member States to make use of all available international measures to defend EU citizens’' fundamental rights, notably by triggering the inter-state complaint procedure under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
Amendment 219 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the US to revise its legislation without delay in order to bring it into line with international law, to recognise the privacy and other rights of EU citizens, to provide for judicial redress for EU citizens, to put rights of EU citizens on an equal footing with rights of US citizens and to sign the Additional Protocol allowing for complaints by individuals under the ICCPR;
Amendment 223 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Notes that the companies identified by media revelations as being involved in the large-scale mass surveillance of EU data subjects by US NSA are companies that have self-certified their adherence to the Safe Harbour, and that the Safe Harbour is the legal instrument used for the transfer of EU personal data to the US (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, Apple, LinkedIn); expresses its concerns on the fact that these organisations admitted that they do not encrypt information and communications flowing between their data centres, thereby enabling intelligence services to intercept information39 ; welcomes in this regard the subsequent efforts by some US companies to accelerate plans to encrypt data flows among their global data centres; __________________ 39 The Washington Post, 31 October 2013.
Amendment 246 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Takes the view that the information provided by the European Commission and the US Treasury does not clarify whether US intelligence agencies have access to SWIFT financial messages in the EU by intercepting SWIFT networks or banks’ operating systems or communication networks, alone or in cooperation with EU national intelligence agencies and without having recourse to existing bilateral channels for mutual legal assistance and judicial cooperationclarify that there were no elements showing that the US Government has acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Agreement, and that the US has provided written assurance that no direct data collection has taken place contrary to the provisions of the TFTP Agreement;
Amendment 248 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
Amendment 251 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Reiterates its resolution of 23 October 2013 and asks the Commission for the suspension of the TFTP AgreementUnderlines the benefits of an EU system to track and identify terrorist activities through financial transactions and the clear commitment of such an EU System to the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 264 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Asks for an immediate resumption of the negotiations with the US on the ‘'Umbrella Agreement’', which should provide for clearput rights for EU citizens on an equal footing with rights for EUS citizens and, moreover the agreement should provide effective and enforceable administrative and judicial remedies for all EU citizens in the US without any discrimination;
Amendment 265 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Asks the Commission and the Council not to initiate any new sectorial agreements or arrangements for the transfer of personal data for law enforcement purposes with the US as long as the ‘'Umbrella Agreement’' has not entered into force;
Amendment 270 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52 a (new)
Paragraph 52 a (new)
52a. Recalls that the concepts of 'privacy by design' and 'privacy by default' are a strengthening of data protection and should be the guidelines for all products, services and systems provided in the internet;
Amendment 277 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Reiterates its serious concerns about the compulsory direct disclosure of EU personal data of EU citizens and information processed under cloud agreements to third-country authorities by cloud providers subject to third-country laws or using storage servers located in third countries, and about direct remote access to personal data and information processed by third-country law enforcement authorities and intelligence services; suggests the creation of a reliable EU cloud, or if necessary a "Schengen cloud", as an useful tool in strengthening EU based IT systems against external threats; relaying on binding legal provisions ensuring that cloud data must be processed within in EU territory and without leaving EU borders;
Amendment 297 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Strongly emphasises, given the importance of the digital economy in the relationship and in the cause of rebuilding EU-US trust, that the European Parliament will only consent to the final TTIP agreement provided theand distinguishes clearly the TTIP negotiations from revelations on the US NSA mass surveillance programme; however the TTIP agreement shall fully respects fundamental rights recognised by the EU Charter, and that the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data must continue to be governed by Article XIV of the GATS;
Amendment 298 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
Paragraph 59 a (new)
59a. European Counter Intelligence policy (New heading for additional paragraphs)
Amendment 299 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 b (new)
Paragraph 59 b (new)
59b. Urges Member States to immediately launch a process of setting up permanent structures to better cooperate in the field of counter intelligence at European level on, at first, a multilateral basis taking the conception of Europol in its first years as a blueprint;
Amendment 300 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 c (new)
Paragraph 59 c (new)
59c. This European Counter Intelligence Service should be set up in order to protect the European citizens, EU institutions, national governments and parliaments, major European companies, European IT infrastructures and networks as well as European universities, science and research from spying. Therefore, calls on those Member States to provide for an active involvement of EU stakeholders in industries, businesses and science within this structure in order to assure an information and knowledge exchange between the European Counter Intelligence Service, Member State's counter intelligence services and European economical key players.
Amendment 301 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 d (new)
Paragraph 59 d (new)
59d. Strongly demands this concept of a European Counter Intelligence Service to be added into the Treaties when being reformed the next time in order to assure a European oversight mechanism and involvement of the European Parliament in the decision making.
Amendment 312 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Calls for the setting up of a high-level group to strengthenUrges willing Member States for the setting up of a permanent cooperation in the field of counter intelligence at EU level, combined with a proper oversight mechanism ensuring both democratic legitimacy and adequate technical capacity; stresses that the high-level group should cooperate closely with national parliaments in order to propose further steps to be taken for increased oversight collaboration in the EUuropean level on, at first, a multilateral basis taking the conception of Europol in its first years as a blueprint. This European counter intelligence cooperation should be set up in order to protect the European citizens, economy, businesses and science from spying. This should be combined with a proper oversight mechanism ensuring democratic legitimacy;
Amendment 332 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Calls on the Commission to present, by September 2014, a proposal for an EU security clearance procedure for all EU office holders to the extent necessary, as the current system, which relies on the security clearance undertaken by the Member State of citizenship, provides for different requirements and lengths of procedures within national systems, thus leading to differing treatment of Members of Parliament and their staff depending on their nationality;
Amendment 336 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Calls on the Europol Joint Supervisory Body, together with national data protection authorities, to conduct a joint inspectionreview before the end of 2014 in order to ascertain whether information and personal data shared with Europol has been lawfully acquired by national authorities, particularly if the information or data was initially acquired by intelligence services in the EU or a third country, and whether appropriate measures are in place to prevent the use and further dissemination of such information or data;
Amendment 337 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Paragraph 72 a (new)
72a. Welcomes the work of the specialised EU agencies and bodies in the field of IT security such as Europol's Cybercrime Centre (EC3), Eurojust, ENISA, CERT- EU and eu-LISA; reminds that the actions and support provided by these agencies deliver a direct added value for the EU and its Member States; deplores that many of these agencies still lack resources to fulfil their mandate while requests for support rise; calls on the Commission to reflect these necessities in the draft budget for 2015;
Amendment 338 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
73. Calls on Europol to ask the competent authorities of the Member States, in linaccordance with its competencesmandate, to initiate investigations with regard to possible cybercrimes and cyber attacks committed by governments or private actors in the course of the activities under scrutiny;
Amendment 339 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
73. Calls on Europol to ask the competent authorities of the Member States, in line with its competences, to initiate investigations with regard to possible cybercrimes and cyber attacks committed by governments or private actors in the course of the activities under scrutiny; calls on the Commission review the activities of the European Cybercrime Centre and to put forward if necessary a proposal for a comprehensive framework for strengthening the competences of the European Cybercrime Centre;
Amendment 347 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
Amendment 356 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Points out that recent incidents clearly demonstrate the acute vulnerability of the EU, and in particular the EU institutions, national governments and parliaments, major European companies, European IT infrastructures and networks, to sophisticated attacks using complex software; notes that these attacks require such financial and human resources that they are likely to originate from state entities acting on behalf of foreign governments or even from certa(including EU national governments that support themMember States); in this context, regards the case of the hacking or tapping of the telecommunications company Belgacom as a worrying example of an attack against the EU’s IT capacity; stresses that serious attacks might also originate from large criminal organisations;
Amendment 362 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77 a (new)
Paragraph 77 a (new)
77a. underlines that a higher degree of IT security and the development of a culture of IT security amongst EU citizens also minimises the vulnerability of the EU and its citizens against cybercrime and cyber facilitated crimes such as financial fraud offences and crime as a service (CaaS) but also more disturbing crimes such as online child sexual exploitation;
Amendment 371 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Calls on all the Members States, the Commission, the Council and the European Council to address the EU’s dangerou's lack of autonomy in terms of IT tools, companies and providers (hardware, software, services and network), and encryption and cryptographic capabilities;
Amendment 378 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Points out that both telecom companies and the EU and national telecom regulators have clearly neglected the IT security of their users and clients; calls on the Commission to make full use of its existing powers under the ePrivacy and Telecommunication Framework Directive to strengthen the protection of confidentiality of communication by adopting measures to ensure that terminal equipment is compatible with the right of users to control and protect their personal data, and to ensure a high level of security of telecommunication networks and services, including by way of requiring state-of-the-art encryption of communications;
Amendment 383 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Calls for the promotion of - EU search engines and EU social networks as a valuable step in the direction of EU's IT independency; - European IT-service provider; - encrypting communication in general including e-mail and sms communication; - European IT-key elements, for instance solutions for client-server-operating system, using open source standards, developing European elements for grid coupling, e.g. router;
Amendment 388 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to assess whether more resources should be directed towards boosting European research, cyber security, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, the fight against cybercrime, cryptology, secure computing, open-source security solutions and the Information Society; considers that small and medium enterprises play a particular role in research;
Amendment 391 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. Calls on the Commission, to strengthen the technological European infrastructure and the European digital market and therefore in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to assess whether; more resources should be directed towards boosting European research, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, cryptology, secure computing, open-source security solutions and the Information Society in order to make email and telecommunications safer; to promote the internal market for European soft- and hardware, and to promote cryptophones and to encrypt communication infrastructures;
Amendment 394 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Asks the Commission together with the European Parliament to map out current responsibilities and to review, by June 2014 at the latest, the need for a broader mandate, better coordination and/or additional resources and technical capabilities for Europol’s Cyber Crime Centre and other Union centres of specialised expertise, ENISA, CERT-EU and the EDPS in order to enable them to be more effective in investigating major IT breaches in the EU and in performing (or assisting Member States and EU bodies to perform) on-site technical investigations regarding major IT breaches;
Amendment 396 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Asks the Commission to map out current responsibilities and to review, by June 2014 at the latest, the need for a broader mandate, better coordination and/or additional resources and technical capabilities for Europol’'s CyberCrime Centre, ENISA, CERT-EU and the EDPS in order to enable them to be more effective in preventing and investigating major IT breaches in the EU and in performing (or assisting Member States and EU bodies to perform) on-site technical investigations regarding major IT breaches;
Amendment 404 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – introductory part
Paragraph 88 – introductory part
88. Calls on the European Parliament’s General Secretariat to carry out, by September 2014 at the latest, a thorough review and assessment of the European Parliament’s IT security dependability focused on: budgetary means, staff resources, technical capabilities, internal organisation and all relevant elements, in order to achieve a high level of security for the EP’s IT systems; believes that such an assessment should at the least provide information analysis and recommendations on:
Amendment 407 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 2
Paragraph 88 – point 2
· the inclusion in tender procedures for new IT systems of specific IT security/privacy requirements, including the possibility of a requirement for Open Source Software as a condition of purchase or the requirement of trusted European companies to take part in the tender when sensitive, security- related areas are concerned;
Amendment 410 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 3
Paragraph 88 – point 3
· the list of US companies under contract with the European Parliament in the IT and telecom fields, taking into account revelations about NSA contracts with a company such as RSA, whose products the European Parliament is using to supposedly protect remote access to their data by its Members and staff, including the feasibility of providing the same services by European companies;
Amendment 421 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
Paragraph 89
89. Calls on all the EU Institutions and agencies to perform a similar exercise in cooperation with ENISA, Europol and the CERTs, by December 2014 at the latest, in particular the European Council, the Council, the External Action Service (including EU delegations), the Commission, the Court of Justice and the European Central Bank; invites the Member States to conduct similar assessments;
Amendment 423 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. Takes the view that the large-scale IT systems used in the area of freedom, security and justice, such as the Schengen Information System II, the Visa Information System, Eurodac and possible future systems such as EU-ESTA, should be developed and operated in such a way as to ensure that data is not compromised as a result of US requests under the Patriot Act; asks eu- LISA to report back to Parliament on the reliability of the systems in place by the end of 2014;
Amendment 431 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. Calls on the Member States, in cooperation with ENISA, Europol’s CyberCrime Centre, CERTs and national data protection authorities and cybercrime units, and to develop a culture of security and to start an education and awareness- raising campaign in order to enable citizens to make a more informed choice regarding what personal data to put on line and how better to protect them, including through ‘digital hygiene’, encryption and safe cloud computing, making full use of the public interest information platform provided for in the Universal Service Directive;
Amendment 462 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Is awareNotes that some EU Member States are pursuing bilateral communication with the US authorities on spying allegations, and that some of them have concluded (United Kingdom) or envisage concluding (Germany, France) so-called ‘anti-spying’ arrangements; underlines that these Member States need to observe fully the interests of the EU as a whole;
Amendment 468 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109 a (new)
Paragraph 109 a (new)
109a. Considers tap-proof communication structures (email and telecommunications, including landlines and cell phones) and tap-proof meeting rooms within all relevant EU institutions and EU delegations as absolutely necessary; therefore calls for the establishment of an encrypted internal EU email-system;
Amendment 495 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 4
Paragraph 114 – point 4
Action 4: Suspend the TFTP agreement until (i) the Umbrella Agreement negotiations have been concluded; (ii) a thorough investigation has been concluded on the basis of an EU analysis, and all concerns raised by Parliament in its resolution of 23 October have been properly addressedto conclude the on-going negotiations on a data protection agreement for law enforcement purposes ("umbrella agreement") soon as possible;
Amendment 501 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 5
Paragraph 114 – point 5
Action 5: Protect the rule of law and, the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threats to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relations) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers;
Amendment 504 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 6
Paragraph 114 – point 6
Action 6: Develop a European strategy for IT independence (at national and EU level) and to initiate a programme for growth for the IT industry which enables the European companies to develop and deliver products in all security related areas;
Amendment 514 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 – point 1
Paragraph 115 – point 1
April-July 2014: a monitoring group based on the LIBE inquiry team responsible for monitoring any new revelations in the media concerning the inquiry’'s mandate and scrutinising the implementation of this resolution;
Amendment 518 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 – point 4
Paragraph 115 – point 4
Amendment 7 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
Citation 17
Amendment 9 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
Amendment 10 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20
Citation 20
Amendment 11 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21
Citation 21
Amendment 16 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24
Citation 24
Amendment 18 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 26
Citation 26
Amendment 19 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28
Citation 28
– having regard to its resolution of 26 April4 May 200712 on the fight against homophobia in Europe12 , __________________ 12 Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0167. Texts adopted, P6_TA(2012)0222.
Amendment 20 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29
Citation 29
Amendment 21 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30
Citation 30
Amendment 22 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 31
Citation 31
Amendment 23 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 32
Citation 32
Amendment 24 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
Amendment 25 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 35
Citation 35
Amendment 26 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
Amendment 29 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 38
Citation 38
Amendment 32 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39
Citation 39
Amendment 43 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas there are about 100 million children in the European Union and about 80 million European persons with disabilities;
Amendment 45 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas women and girls are the main victims of gender-based violence, as according to estimations in the EU, 20- 25% of women have suffered physical violence at least once during their lives; whereas hundreds of thousands of women living in Europe have been subjected to genital mutilation and thousands of girls are at risk;
Amendment 46 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas persons with disabilities and especially children still face lack of assistance and support for their inclusion in schools, difficulties in accessing buildings or services and troubles in being heard and participating in decisions affecting their lives;
Amendment 48 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas women in the EU earn around 16 % less per hour than men;
Amendment 50 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas the article 2 and article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognise the right to life and the right to the integrity of the person;
Amendment 51 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 56 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 60 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 62 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 67 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas numerous fundamental rights violations are still occurring in the European Union and in the Member States, as detailed in (annual and special) reports by the Commission, NGOs and the Council of Europe, in UN documents, etc.;
Amendment 75 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Encourages the Commission and the Member States to intensify their cooperation, including with the European Parliament and national parliaments, in order to improve the implementation of the existing EU human rights legislations; calls for closer cooperation between the Union institutions and other international bodies, in particular the Council of Europe;
Amendment 77 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recommends that Parliament, the Commission and the Council should recognise the existence of positive obligations to protect and promote human rights; emphasises that respect for fundamental rights and freedoms implies actions at various levels; stresses the role played in this area by regional and local authorities, NGOs and civil society, and asks the Commission and the Council to improve their cooperation with these actors;
Amendment 78 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Reminds the Union institutions and the Member States of the need to comply with their obligations to respect fundamental freedoms and rights; notes that participation in international treaties for the protection and promotion of human rights can only serve to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights within the EU;
Amendment 79 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Calls on the Union institutions and the Member States to respect, guarantee, protect and promote the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, and hence to refrain from exerting or developing mechanisms to impede those freedoms;
Amendment 80 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Welcomes the steps taken by the Commission to ensure that its legislative proposals comply with the Charter; notes, however, that there remains room for improvement; calls on the Commission to take tangible steps towards ensuring that its proposals are verified against the Charter and that the impact on fundamental rights of EU legislation and its implementation by the Member States are systematically examined in its evaluation reports on the implementation of EU legislation, as well as in its annual report on monitoring the application of EU law;
Amendment 81 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Suggests that there should be more transparency in the Commission's dialogue with Member States, as well as in the work of EU agencies, when fundamental rights or the interests of European citizens are at stake; calls on the Commission, in addition, to make full use of the existing mechanisms and to launch objective investigations and take out infringement proceedings if its case is well grounded, thus avoiding double standards, whenever a Member State violates the rights enshrined in the Charter when implementing EU legislation;
Amendment 82 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 g (new)
Paragraph 1 g (new)
1g. Calls on the Commission – and the Council, where it initiates legislation – to where appropriate make use of the external independent expertise of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA);
Amendment 83 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 h (new)
Paragraph 1 h (new)
1h. Suggests that, in spite of the blockages which have occurred, the Commission should conclude the procedure for the EU's accession to the ECHR as soon as possible, as it will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing the human rights of its citizens;
Amendment 84 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 i (new)
Paragraph 1 i (new)
1i. Invites Member States to join and ratify the human rights conventions of the Council of Europe and to implement the already existing instruments of the acquis communautaire and to reconsider the opt- outs, which might risk affecting the rights of their citizens;
Amendment 88 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that it is essential for the European Union and the Member States to guarantee respect for the common European values set out in Article 2 of the EU Treaty, that all the instruments currently provided for in the treaties in this regard urgently need to be applied and implemented, and that where necessary amendments to the treaties should be prepared;
Amendment 91 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the European Union is bound to adopt legislation with full respect to its competences as set by the treaties including the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 100 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point d
Paragraph 3 – point d
Amendment 110 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point e
Paragraph 3 – point e
(e) establish a newmake full use of existing mechanisms to ensure that the fundamental rights and the values of the Union referred to in Article 2 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are respected, protected and promoted;
Amendment 115 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 118 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point a
Paragraph 4 – point a
Amendment 122 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point b
Paragraph 4 – point b
Amendment 125 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point c
Paragraph 4 – point c
Amendment 128 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point d
Paragraph 4 – point d
Amendment 132 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point e
Paragraph 4 – point e
Amendment 138 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point f
Paragraph 4 – point f
Amendment 144 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 148 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 153 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 164 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Expresses its concern about the instances of violation of human dignity which are still occurring in the Union and in certain Member States, whose victims particularly include minorities, asylum- seekers, migrants, people suspected of having links with terrorism and people who are deprived of their freedom; sStresses that the public authorities must abide by the absolute prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, carry out swift, effective, independent in- depth investigations into any breach and prosecute those responsible;
Amendment 168 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses the importance of protecting the rights of refugees and migrants, and underlines that special attention should be paid to women and children migrants;
Amendment 170 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Welcomes the completion of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and calls on the Member States to ensure that the CEAS is fully established as planned and provides better access to the asylum procedure for those who seek protection, and leads to fairer, quicker and better quality asylum decisions; and will provide dignified and decent conditions both for those who apply for asylum and those who are granted international protection within the EU;
Amendment 172 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 181 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 187 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Member States, who has not yet done so, to fully transpose and implement the Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims and to adopt appropriate measures to ensure that victims of trafficking in human beings are adequately assisted and protected, traffickers are prosecuted, getting effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, while preventive measures are also in place.
Amendment 188 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Calls on the Member States to fully transpose the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, adopting appropriate measures to ensure adequate assistance and protection of victims of crime
Amendment 189 #
Amendment 194 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recognises that the right to live in safety is also a fundamental right of European citizens and should be protected as such;
Amendment 208 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the fact that a growing number of Member States are respecting the right to found a family through marriage, civil partnership or registered cohabitation and adoption, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and calls on the Commission and all Member States to adopt legislation and policies to combat homophobia, transphobia and hate crimes; reiterates its calls for the Commission to draw up a European roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity;
Amendment 213 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission and all Member States to adopt legislation and policies to combat homophobia, transphobia and hate crimes;
Amendment 227 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Expresses its concern about the numerous breaches of the right of asylum and of the obligation to extend protection in the event of removal, expulsion and extradition of any migrant; stresses the obligation to comply with international human rights conventions, particularly the Geneva Convention and the principle of non-refoulement, and the obligation to come to the assistance of people at sea who are risking their lives to reach the European Union, and to arrange for reception conditions and procedures which respect their dignity and fundamental rights; welcomes the adoption of the ‘asylum’ package; deplores, however, the fact that minors can still be placed in detention and calls for them to be systematically excluded from expedited procedures; calls for the establishment of common minimum standards for the reception of unaccompanied minors;
Amendment 246 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Stresses that the principles of human dignity, equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination on any grounds are foundations of democratic society; calls on Member States to adopt a national legislative framework to address all forms of discrimination and guarantee the effective implementation of the existing EU legal framework;
Amendment 255 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that the Union and Member States should step up their measures to promote equality, combat discrimination and protect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, and their measures relating to gender equality, the rights of the child, the rights of older persons, the integration of people with disabilities and the rights of LGBT persons; reiterates for the umpteenth time its call for the Council to adopt the Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;
Amendment 275 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Expresses its concern about the situation of the Roma in the European Union and the numerous instances of persecution, violence, stigmatisation, and discrimination and expulsion, contrary to fundamental rights and European Union law; calls for more vigorous action to promote integration, particularly in the field of protection of fundamental rights, and calls for an end to illegal expulsions and to segregation of Roma children in schools;
Amendment 279 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide an effective response to Roma exclusion by developing integrated policies and implementing the measures set out in the strategies focusing on anti-discrimination measures and measures aiming to increase their employability and access to labour market in cooperation with representatives of the Roma population, while also ensuring their full participation in the management, monitoring and evaluation of projects affecting their communities, and also to analyse the financial feasibility and sustainability of the national Roma integration strategies and allocate sufficient budget resources to this end and ensure the efficiency of spending;
Amendment 281 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Points out that positive measures implemented for the purpose of protecting minority persons and groups, fostering their appropriate development and ensuring that they are granted equal rights and treatment with respect to the rest of the population in the administrative, political, economic, social and cultural fields and in other spheres shall not be considered as discrimination
Amendment 282 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Considers that traditional national minority communities have specific needs different from other minority groups, that public policies should be more focused and that the Union itself must address these needs in a more appropriate way;
Amendment 295 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Condemns racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and xenophobic violence and violence against migrants, whichalls on the Member States to implement the Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia, to address discrimination, to ensure the investigation of hate speech and havte reached alarming levels in certain Member States, in the absence of strong action by the authoritiescrimes, to adopt criminal legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred on any grounds including sexual orientation, and to ensure that there is effective protection against racism, anti-Semitism, anti- gypsyism, xenophobia and homophobia and that victims are offered proper assistance;
Amendment 306 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on Member States to ensure equality between women and men and to combat all forms of violence against womeUrges the EU and the Member States to step up their efforts to achieve the objectives of the European Pact for Equality between women and men (2011- 2020), and to take adequate measures to tackle all forms of direct and indirect discrimination against women, in particular the gender pay gap, occupational segregation, stereotyping, and all forms of violence against women; recalls that women continue to suffer multiple discrimination in various areas of everyday life in spite of the legislation in force on combating discrimination;
Amendment 311 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Welcomes the Commission's Zero Tolerance of violence against women; however calls for more action including an EU-wide strategy to end violence against women, as announced in the Council conclusions of March 2010, comprising legally binding instruments and awareness-raising actions; calls furthermore on the Commission and the Member States to keep the issue of violence against women high on the agenda as Gender-based violence is both a consequence of the inequalities between women and men as well as an obstacle to equality and therefore should not be tolerated;
Amendment 313 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Stresses that a zero tolerance policy must apply to female genital mutilation;
Amendment 315 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Encourage Member states to develop adequately resourced policies to better integrate persons with disabilities and facilitate their access to housing, education, public transports and facilities, and participation to the political process;
Amendment 324 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Welcomes the decision to declare 2014 as the European Year of Work and Family Life Balance, calls on the Commission and Member States to take measure and launch projects for better reconciliation of family and working life for all generations of women;
Amendment 336 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty makes it necessary to increase transparency and openness in the Union; deplores the interinstitutional blockage of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on the right of access to documents and information; calls on the Council and Commission to resume their work on the revision of this Regulation, on the basis of the proposals by Parliament;
Amendment 341 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Welcomes the decision to declare 2013 as the European Year of Citizens, however calls on the Commission together with the Member States to continue to inform the EU citizens about their rights, so that they can fully enjoy their EU citizenship
Amendment 343 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Calls on the Member States to launch information campaigns to inform EU citizens about their right to vote and stand for election; calls for the necessary reforms of the European election procedures to be carried out in all Member States in order to promote active EU citizenship; calls on the Member States to encourage the active participation of citizens through citizens' initiatives and the exercise of the right of petition and the right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman;
Amendment 348 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that the right to freedom of movement and residence of European citizens and their families laid down in the Treaties and guaranteed by the Directive on freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights of European citizens; condemns any attempt to review this acquis, and calls for any breach of the rules to result in action before the Court of Justice, particularly in cases where the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ethnic or racial origin or sexual orientation is breached;
Amendment 358 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses that the independent, equitable, effective, egalitarian and just administration of justice, within reasonable time limits, is fundamental to democracy and the rule of law and to their credibility; expresses its concern about the numerous breaches which have occurred in this context, as demonstrated by the number of cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has found against States; stresses that any impunity on grounds of a position of power, force or influence over persons or the judicial or political authorities cannot be tolerated in the European Union;
Amendment 367 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Notes the roadmap issued by the Commission with regard to civil justice, and calls for it to be developed so as also to cover criminal justice; stresses that it should be incorporated into the new procedure which also extends to democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights and equality, in the European policy cycle on the application of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union;
Amendment 371 #
2013/2078(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Amendment 3 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Treaty of Lisbon brought important positive elements to the area of freedom, security and justice but deplornotes 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 forcepoints out that the Treaty of Lisbon signifies increased powers for Parliament; 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 theyir 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 15 #
2013/2024(INI)
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 over, given the array of legal bases providedEncourages the Council's decision from its informal meeting in July 2013 to adopt a successor programme 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 soStockholm Programme, notes further that a scope and volume of this programme still have to be defined;
Amendment 18 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. EncouragesNotes that the Commission, therefore, to assume its role in framing polici can make use of its right to propose legislation with full respect to its competences ands setting legislative priorities and to make use of its right to propose legislation whenever necessary by the treaties including the principle of subsidiarity and in close cooperation with the co-legislators; states, at the same time, its opposition to any return to the intergovernmental approach which characterised the era prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 23 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
Uniform electoral law for the European Parliament elections
Amendment 26 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that, even in the absence of an agreement on a uniform electoral procedure for the European Parliament elections, electoral systems are gradually becoming more similar, in particular as a result of the establishment of political parties at European Union level4 , the work on drawing up a European statute based on the Commission proposal for a reform of the rules governing European political parties5 and the ban on holding a dual mandate6 , which has made the office of Member of the European Parliament incompatible with that of Member of a national parliament; encourages more transparent procedures for the nomination of candidates that guarantee their independence and the possibility to introduce direct constituencies;
Amendment 51 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is of the view that, in general terms, the implementation of the Stockholm Programme does not live up to its ambition to promote citizens’ rightStockholm Programme was very ambitious, that it has not yet been fully implemented and that its implementation needs to be stepped up in order to promote justice, security and civil liberties;
Amendment 54 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls urgently for measures to address the so-calledfor thought to be given, at all levels, to making a better response to the 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 Affairs;
Amendment 72 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Fears that the economic crisis may develop into a crisis of democracy and believes that strong political leadership is necessary to defend democratic achievementsTakes the view that, at a time of economic crisis, it is necessary to be particularly vigilant so as to safeguard democracy and prevent intolerance;
Amendment 75 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Takes the view that the adoption and effective implementation of legislation regarding the tackling of hate crime and those who promote, support and commit hate crime, is paramount;
Amendment 89 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Regrets the inadequacy of policies on integrating people with disabilities and of how their rights are taken into account;
Amendment 96 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 101 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that the Stockholm Programme aims to facilitate the free movement of European citizens and further improve security in the Union and thus protect the lives and safety of citizens of the Union and to tackle organised crime, terrorism and other threats by defending and respecting all the rights and obligations deriving from a European area of justice, and that judicial cooperation represents the mainone tool to achieve this objective;
Amendment 105 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recognises that initiatives in the field of the mutual recognition of legal situations, judgments and documents play a very important role in this respect, as mutual recognition leaves the legal systems of Member States unchanged, but reduces the inconvenience which differences in regulation cause for individual citizens by reducing the inconvenience which differences in regulation cause for individual citizens, hence notes that initiatives such as mutual recognition should be based upon clear and common minimum standards, respecting the rule of law and the fundamental rights, ultimately thoroughness should prevail over rapidity;
Amendment 111 #
2013/2024(INI)
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 the strengthening of a truly European legal culture that is fully respectful of the principles of subsidiary and of judicial independence, the establishment of common standards and an understanding of other legal systems, in particular through training, plays a very important role in underpinning mutual recognition and trust; points out that mutual recognition and trust can lead to gradual changes in national civil law traditions through an exchange of best practices between Member States;
Amendment 126 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Acknowledges the progress made with the roadmap for procedural rights in criminal proceedings, but regrets that key proposals on legal aid and vulnerable suspects are outstanding and that the level of ambition of the Council seems to be decreasing more and morenothing has been done as regards protecting witnesses and whistleblowers;
Amendment 144 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Believes that mutual trust between the Member States must be strengthened 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; welcomes the important steps that have been taken in this extend like the European Arrest Warrant;
Amendment 160 #
2013/2024(INI)
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 combating transnational organised crime, cybercrime, protection of critical infrastructure and the fights against corruption, money laundering, terrorist funding and the trade in illegal firearms;
Amendment 161 #
2013/2024(INI)
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, cyber- facilitated crime such as child pornography, protection of critical infrastructure and the fights against organised crime, including economic crimes, corruption, money laundering, terrorist funding and the trade in illegal firearms, notably through strengthening the according Agencies on the European level;
Amendment 165 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Encourages thought to be given to the possibility of withdrawing 500-euro notes so as to combat money laundering and criminal networks more effectively;
Amendment 171 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Recalls that Parliament is now a fully- fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies, and is therefore entitled to participate actively in determining the features and priorities of the ISS and in evaluating those instruments, including through regular monitoring exercises on by monitoring the implementation of the ISS, to be conducted jointly by the European Parliament, national parliaments and the Council under Articles 70 and 71 TFEU;
Amendment 175 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Believes that a proper analysis of the security threats to be addressed is an essential prerequisite for an effective ISS; notes the usefulness of Europol's analyses in this connection;
Amendment 177 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Points out that the current ISS will come to an end in 2014; calls on the Commission to start preparing a new ISS for the period 2015-2019 which takes account of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into Union law; calls on the Council to take Parliament’s input, and Europol's risk analyses, for the new ISS properly into account before adopting the new strategy;
Amendment 183 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Acknowledges that cross-border crime is on 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 tools 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 sharing in the EU while guaranteeing a robust level of data protection; notes the need to boost law enforcement authorities' confidence in each other so as to step up information exchanges;
Amendment 188 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Congratulates the Commission on its proposal on the confiscation of criminal assets, and trusts that this reform measure will be adopted promptly; points out that confiscating criminal assets is one of the most effective ways of combatting criminal organisations;
Amendment 190 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34b. Regrets the delay in the negotiations on introducing a European passenger name record (PNR) system;
Amendment 194 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal forchange of legal basis and positive developments proposed by the Commission for Europol, with a view to the new Europol Regulation, and hopes for a quick advancement of this important legislative dossier so that Europol can be brought into line with the Lisbon Treaty as soon as possible;
Amendment 198 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Finds the lack of progress on combatting terrorism most regrettable; notes in particular that much remains to be done on preventing terrorism and on tracking and preventing terrorist financing; calls for policies to be developed to prevent the radicalisation of young people, in particular, and to detect its early signs;
Amendment 199 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 b (new)
Paragraph 36 b (new)
36b. Notes that trafficking in the EU, both of drugs and of people, is continuing to expand and that the relevant European policies need to be strengthened;
Amendment 200 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 c (new)
Paragraph 36 c (new)
36c. Regrets that the EU does not yet have the proper resources to prevent natural or man-made disasters and respond to them;
Amendment 201 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 d (new)
Paragraph 36 d (new)
36d. Calls for the resources allocated for joint investigation teams to be expanded without excessive red tape;
Amendment 202 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 e (new)
Paragraph 36 e (new)
36e. Calls for policies to protect children against all forms of violence, including in the digital environment, to be strengthened;
Amendment 209 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Considers the absence of controls at internal borders as one of the major achievements of European integration; requests the Commission to pay particular attention to the absence of controls at internal borders, and firmly rejects all unjustified attempts to limit the freedom of movement of persons;
Amendment 216 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Acknowledges that the Schengen area is a kind of laboratory that so far has been developed step by step; is nevertheless of the opinion that a long-term reflection about its further development is necessary, with a view to strengthening external border controls; believes that the Schengen external borders should in the future be guarded by European border guards;
Amendment 222 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Welcomes the reform of the mandate of FRONTEX and the agreement on Eurosur; considers that the new rules for the surveillance of sea borders need to be agreed on as soon as possible, that priority should be given to saving the lives of migrants and that the principle of non- refoulement is to be fully respected; considers that the saving of lives starts already in the third country and that cooperation with third countries should be improved;
Amendment 227 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Welcomes the successful migration to the Schengen Information System II, the continued roll-out of the Visa Information System and the setting-up of the agency eu-LISA for their operational management; underlines that these new systems now need to stand the test of everyday use; recalls its request that ‘new border management instruments or large-scale data storage systems should not be launched until the existing tools are fully operational, safe and reliable’; is looking forward to the evaluations of the systems foreseen in the respective legal instruments;
Amendment 230 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Calls for the security of source documents to be enhanced in order to improve the reliability of identity documents in the European Union;
Amendment 231 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 b (new)
Paragraph 41 b (new)
41b. Stresses the importance of using all means at our disposal, including the available new technologies, to strengthen external border controls;
Amendment 232 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 c (new)
Paragraph 41 c (new)
41c. Highlights the importance of tackling trafficking and smuggling at borders, including combatting the trafficking of migrants;
Amendment 233 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls for a much better implementationWelcomes the progress made in the field of the visa acquis and greater harmonisation of visa procedures and practices; believes that common visa application centres should become the standard; calls forhave proven to be an useful tool; believes that an interinstitutional discussion on the objectives of the common visa policy can be useful to elaborate further steps of a further harmonisation of visa procedures, including common rules on the issuing of visas;
Amendment 244 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that in the Stockholm Programme the European Council had underlined ‘that well-managed migration can be beneficial to all stakeholders’; regrets the limitedexpects that further progress is made in the adoption of legislation in the field of legal migration, and calls for greater efforts in the future in view of the demographic challenges and the needs of the economy; believes, at the same time, that the integration of migrants requires greater attention;
Amendment 247 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43 a. Acknowledges that the recent changes and turmoil in Northern Africa and the Middle East have intensified the pressure in the EU's Eastern and Southern borders;
Amendment 248 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 b (new)
Paragraph 43 b (new)
43 b. Calls for the introduction of a coherent, voluntary permanent intra-EU relocation scheme for beneficiaries of international protection;
Amendment 252 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Welcomes the adoption of the asylum package; calls on the Commission to monitor the correct and comprehensive implementation of the package by theevery Member States as from the date of application;
Amendment 267 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Believes that the external dimensionEU coordination and support in the field of asylum should be expanded, especially in relation to resettlement;
Amendment 268 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 46 – subparagraph 1 (new)
points out that return policies are an integral part of the policies for tackling illegal immigration; stresses that mutual cooperation and recognition of return decisions must be strengthened;
Amendment 272 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46 a. Points out the importance of the effective implementation of readmission agreements with third countries; reiterates that when a third country does not effectively cooperate, return may become in practice impossible;
Amendment 273 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. External dimension of freedom, security and justice
Amendment 275 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 b (new)
Paragraph 46 b (new)
46b. Notes the importance of a strengthened external dimension for European policies in the area of freedom, security and justice;
Amendment 276 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 c (new)
Paragraph 46 c (new)
46c. Calls for cooperation with third countries to be strengthened at all levels in the areas of security, migration, fundamental rights and border management;
Amendment 277 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 d (new)
Paragraph 46 d (new)
46d. Notes the need to examine and address the role of transit countries;
Amendment 278 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 e (new)
Paragraph 46 e (new)
46e. Stresses the need to encourage voluntary return policies;
Amendment 279 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 f (new)
Paragraph 46 f (new)
46f. Points out that the European Union and the Member States should continue to integrate immigration into development cooperation and strengthen their partnership agreements with a view to promoting cooperation with third countries of origin and transit on tackling people trafficking and irregular immigration, the restoration of family ties, return and readmission, in the context of the regular dialogue which the European Union conducts with these countries and the action carried out by the European External Action Service (EEAS);
Amendment 280 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
Amendment 282 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47 a. Believes that through closer coordination and cooperation between the Commission, Member States and the EU Agencies such as Europol, Frontex, EASO, ENISA, EMCDDA and eu-LISA, the implementation of new legislation and the benefits from these Agencies for Member States can be improved;
Amendment 283 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 b (new)
Paragraph 47 b (new)
47 b. underlines the necessity to strengthen mechanisms and tools to ensure equal implementation and to avoid abuse within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice; stresses the importance of information sharing on both national and EU level and when necessary the possibility to use suspension clauses in EU legislation;
Amendment 284 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. DeploRegrets the absence of an objective evaluation of the progress towards an area of freedom, security and justice and of reliable information on the Member States’ implementation of theat there is not more information available on the Member States’ implementation of European legislation to make it easier for legislators and citizens to monitor the application and development of the European acquis;
Amendment 285 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
Amendment 291 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Regrets that impact assessments have not always been adequate and have not always made it possible to assess objectively the costs of new measures; stresses the importance of avoiding any excessive bureaucracy;
Amendment 296 #
2013/2024(INI)
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 assess all justice areas, including criminal justice and all horizontal issues; 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;
Amendment 303 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Requests the Commission to put more emphasis on overseeing and ensuring the concrete implementation of EU legislation by the Member States; notes that, when the rights of citizens are concerned, this needs to be done as of the first day an act enters into force; considers that more needs to be done in this area, and that the reasons for any failure to implement EU legislation should be identified;
Amendment 306 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Is of the opinion that improving the quality of EU legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice requires a joint effort by the Member States and the European institutions in order to improve the exchange of information on each national system and to provide accurate legal information (on national/regional applicable legislation and standards) as well as information on implementation and practises; calls for better interinstitutional coordination;
Amendment 307 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. DeploRegrets that the Council’s frequent recourse to does not involve Parliament more in the drawing up of strategy documents, such as the drugs strategy and the internal security strategy, which are adopted without any involvement of Parliament;
Amendment 310 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Considers that the development of a European judicial and police culture is a key prerequisite for making the area of freedom, security and justice a reality for citizens; calls, with this in mind, for much greater emphasis on, and funding for, EU judicial training for all legal professionals and police forces; notes the importance of using a ‘bottom-up approach’ for judicial training schemes, of ensuring the greater accessibility of European law information resources via web technology (i.e. an e- justice portal), of improving knowledge of European law among the judiciary as well as of the linguistic skills of judicial practitioners, and of establishing and maintaining networks in this field; notes that the training of police forces with a European perspective is equally importantnd language skills among the judiciary and police forces, and of establishing and maintaining networks in this field and any other measures to facilitate their cooperation on a day-to- day basis;
Amendment 312 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Demands that any future programming be prepared in the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon in a joint exercise of Parliament, the Council and the Commission; believes it is necessary to focus on the implementation and consolidation of existing instruments and that a future programme should therefore be short and balanced; takes note of the European Council conclusions of 27/28 June this year according to which the European Council ‘will hold a discussion at its June 2014 meeting to define strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning in the area of freedom, security and justice (pursuant to Article 68 TFEU)’, considers the envisaged timing as inappropriate;
Amendment 79 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) With a view to enabling the breeding and trading of farm animals, specific rules should be laid down for invasive alien species considered to be of Union concern and subject to these activities. These activities should be carried out in closed, secure establishments and with the necessary measures taken to prevent invasive alien species considered to be of Union concern from escaping or being illegally released.
Amendment 86 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) EArticle 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: ‘In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage’. Article 13 does not mention environmental policy, which is the legal basis of this Regulation. However, eradicating and managing some invasive alien species, while necessary, may induce pain, distress, fear or other forms of suffering to the animals even when using the best available technical means. For that reason, Member States and any operator involved in the eradication, control or containment of invasive alien species should endeavour to take the necessary measures to minimise pain, distress and suffering of animals during the process, taking into account in so far as possible the best practices in the field, for example the Guiding Principles on Animal Welfare developed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).
Amendment 148 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) they are, having regard to scientific evidence available, found to be a threat to the health of plants and agriculture, with a direct economic impact on the territory;
Amendment 177 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) a quantified forecast of the damage costs at Union level demonstrating the significance for the Union, so as to further justify action because the overall damagetotal cost of the damage caused by the species would outweigh the cost of mitigation;
Amendment 179 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
(ha) a description of the negative effects on plant health and agriculture as a whole, together with an assessment of the extent of future effects;
Amendment 217 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8 a (new)
Amendment 264 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. When applying eradication measures, Member States shall ensure that the methods used are effective in achieving the complete and permanent removal of the population of the invasive alien species concerned, with due regard to human health and the environment, and ensuringdeavouring to ensure that targeted animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering.
Amendment 280 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. When applying management measures, Member States shall endeavour to ensure that the methods used have due regard for human health and the environment and that, when animals are targeted, they are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering.
Amendment 321 #
2013/0307(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. For non-commercial owners who cannot ensure that the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are met, Member States shall offer to them the possibility of having their specimens taken over from them and shall endeavour to give due regard to animal welfare when handling them.
Amendment 24 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Such disparities facilitate illegal trafficking of such substances by criminals, in particular organised criminal gangs.
Amendment 48 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28a) Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the dangers presented by such substances, the risks of which are still largely unknown.
Amendment 49 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Prevention, treatment and harm reduction measures are important for addressing the growing use of new psychoactive substances and their potential risks. The internet, which is one of the important distribution channels through which new psychoactive substances are sold, should be used for disseminating information on the health, social and safety risks that they pose. It is essential for children, adolescents and young adults to be made aware of those risks, including by means of information campaigns in schools and other educational environments.
Amendment 65 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Where the EMCDDA and Europol, or the Commission, consider that the information shared on a new psychoactive substance notified by several Member States gives rise to concerns across the Union because of the health, social and safety risks that the new psychoactive substance may pose, or in response to a reasoned request from more than one Member State, the EMCDDA and Europol shall draw up a joint report on the new psychoactive substance.
Amendment 72 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Within four weeks from the receipt of the joint report referred to in Article 6, or in response to a reasoned request from more than one Member State, the Commission may request the EMCDDA to assess the potential risks posed by the new psychoactive substance and to draw up a risk assessment report. The risk assessment shall be conducted by the Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA.
Amendment 75 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA shall assess the risks during a special meeting. The Committee may be extended by not more than five experts, representing the scientific fields relevant for ensuring a balanced assessment of the risks of the new psychoactive substance. The Director of the EMCDDA shall designate them from a list of experts. The Management Board of the EMCDDA shall approve the list of experts every three years. The European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the EMCDDA, Europol and the European Medicines Agency shall each have the right to nominate two observers.
Amendment 122 #
2013/0305(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a (new)
Article 20a Prevention The Commission and the Member States shall promote prevention schemes and measures to raise awareness of the risks posed by psychoactive substances, such as educational information campaigns.
Amendment 20 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Aa (new)
Recital Aa (new)
Aa. whereas 10% of OLAF’s investigations involve cross-border organised crime, and whereas these investigations nevertheless account for 40% of the total financial impact in terms of the EU’s financial interests;
Amendment 31 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers the Commission proposal to be a further step towards the establishment of a European criminal justice area and in strengthening the tax payers’ confidence in the EU;
Amendment 44 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 4 – point i a (new)
(ia) the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be given full independence both from national governments and from EU institutions and be protected from any political pressure;
Amendment 104 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point i
Paragraph 6 – point i
(i) in order to ensure a successful and fair outcome for investigations and their coordination, those who are required to conduct them should have in-depth knowledge of the legal systems of the countries concerned. To that end, the organisational model of the EPPO should include, centrally, at least one representative per Member State;
Amendment 111 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is not empowered to handle serious cross- border crime such as organised crime; encourages the Commission to carry out an impact assessment on this matter;
Amendment 119 #
2013/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57 a (new)
Recital 57 a (new)
Amendment 120 #
2013/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57 b (new)
Recital 57 b (new)
(57b) Hunters have knowledge of the diseases affecting large game, as they are now required to do, for example under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.
Amendment 135 #
2013/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 87
Recital 87
(87) The occurrence of a listed disease in wild animals may pose a risk to public health and the health of kept animals, or vice versa. Special rules should therefore be laid down for disease control and eradication measures in wild animals, or, where needed, in kept animals.
Amendment 223 #
2013/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
iii) the welfare of affected subpopulations of kept and wild animals;
Amendment 31 #
2013/0106(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption, and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken1a, with particular reference to the fight against human trafficking and death traffickers, ____________ 1a Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0444.
Amendment 66 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004, border surveillance operations coordinated by the Agency are conducted in accordance with an operational plan. Accordingly, as regards sea operations, the operational plan should include specific information on the application of the relevant jurisdiction and legislation in the geographical area where the joint operation or pilot project takes place, including references to international and Union law, regarding interception, rescue at sea and disembarkation. In turn, this Regulation governs the issues of interception, rescue at sea and disembarkation in the context of sea border surveillance operations coordinated by the Agency in accordance with international law and fundamental rights.
Amendment 69 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) This Regulation respects international law and, in particular, international Conventions governing search and rescue and relevant bilateral agreements which comply with international law.
Amendment 97 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. In case of disembarkation in a third country, the participating units shall identify the intercepted or rescued persons and assess their personal circumstances to the extent possible before disembarkation. They shall inform the intercepted or rescued persons of the place of disembarkation in anthe most appropriate way possible and they shall give them an opportunity to express any reasons for believing that disembarkation in the proposed place would be in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.
Amendment 99 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. In case of disembarkation in a third country, the participating units shall identify the intercepted or rescued persons and assess their personal circumstances to the extent possible before disembarkation. They shall inform the intercepted or rescued persons of the place of disembarkation in an appropriate way and they shall give them an opportunity to express any reasons for believing that disembarkation in the proposed place would be in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.
Amendment 164 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. DuringBefore a sea operation, participating units shall render assistance to any ship or person in distress at seaMember States shall instruct their participating units to comply with the obligation to render assistance to any ship or person in distress at sea, in accordance with applicable provisions of international Conventions governing search and rescue and fundamental rights. They shall do so regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found.
Amendment 169 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. When facing, in the course of a sea operation, a situation of uncertainty, alert or distress as regards a ship or any person on board, the participating unit shall forward as soon as possible all available information to the Rescue Coordination Centre responsible for the search and rescue region in which the situation occurs.
Amendment 170 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 171 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Amendment 172 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Amendment 173 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6
Article 9 – paragraph 6
Amendment 178 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Amendment 180 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 8
Article 9 – paragraph 8
Amendment 182 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9
Article 9 – paragraph 9
Amendment 183 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 10
Article 9 – paragraph 10
Amendment 188 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. TFor the purposes of sea operations coordinated by the Agency, the modalities for the disembarkation of the persons intercepted or rescued in a sea operation shall be set out in the operational plan. Those modalities for disembarkation shall not have the effect of ime participating units shall cooperate with the responsing obligations on Member States not participating in the sea operation unless they expressly provide authorisation for meable Rescue Coordination Centre to provide a suitable port or place of safety for the rescued persons and to ensures to be taken in their territorial sea or contiguous zone in accordance with Article 6(4) or Article 8(2)heir rapid and effective disembarkation. The modalities shall be in accordance with international law and relevant bilateral agreements which comply with international law.
Amendment 191 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 194 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 196 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Amendment 200 #
2013/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 234 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Europol shall not apply coercive measures.
Amendment 266 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 10
Article 7 – paragraph 10
10. Each year Europol shall draw up a report on the quantity and quality of information provided by each Member State pursuant to paragraph 5(a) and on exchanges of information falling within its field of competence in an effort to strengthen performance of its National Unitolice cooperation. The annual report shall be sent to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and national parliaments. Where necessary, Europol and the Europol National Units concerned shall work together to carry out the requisite evaluations.
Amendment 368 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall have indirect access on the basis of a hit/no hit system to information provided for the purposes of Article 24(1)(c), without prejudice to any restrictions indicated by the Member States, Union bodies and third countries or international organisations providing the information, in accordance with Article 25(2). In the case of a hit, Europol shall inform the Member State which provided the information and initiate the procedure by which the information that generated the hit may be shared, in accordance with the decision of the Member State that provided the information to Europolin question.
Amendment 380 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. If Europol, in accordance with its task pursuant to Article 4(1)(b), needs to inform a Member State about information concerning it, and that information is subject to access restrictions pursuant to Article 25(2), that would prohibit sharing it, Europol shall consult with the data provider stipulating the access restriction and seek its authorisation for sharing. Without such an authorisation, the information shall not be shared. In cases where the information is not subject to access restrictions pursuant to Article 25, Europol shall nevertheless inform the Member State which provided the information that it has been passed on.
Amendment 585 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – point f
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) to impose a temporary or, definitive, partial or total ban on processing;
Amendment 635 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 55 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The appointing authority shall make full use of the possibilities given by the Staff Regulation and provide specialised staff such as IT-experts with a higher function group and grade according to their qualification to fulfil the tasks of the Agency pursuant to Article 4 in an ideal manner.
Amendment 104 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Furthermore, the misuse of the financial system to channel criminal or even clean money to terrorist purposes poses a clear risk to the integrity, proper functioning, reputation and stability of the financial system. Accordingly, the preventive measures of this Directive should cover not only the manipulation of money derived from crime but also the collection of money or property for terrorist purposes. It should also address the vulnerabilities of the financial systems in the different EU Member States.
Amendment 124 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) It is important to ensure and enhance the traceability of payments. The need for accurate and up-to-date information on the beneficial owner is a key factor in tracing criminals who might otherwise hide their identity behind a corporate structure. Member States should therefore ensure that companies retain information on their beneficial ownership and make this information available to competent authorities and obliged entities. In addition, trustees should declare their status to obliged entities.
Amendment 177 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the conversion or transfer of property, knowing, or should have known based on concrete facts and circumstances, that such property is derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such activity, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of avoiding freezing or confiscation orders or of assisting any person who is involved in the commission of such activity to evade the legal consequences of his action;
Amendment 420 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. The FIU shall be established as a central national unit. It shall be responsible for receiving (and to the extent permitted, requesting), analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities, disclosures of information which concern potential money laundering or associated predicate offences, potential terrorist financing or are required by national legislation or regulation. The FIU shall be provided with adequate financial, technical and human resources in order to fulfil its tasks. Member States shall ensure that the FIU is free from undue interference.
Amendment 431 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Without prejudice of paragraph 1, Member States shall require obliged entities to address systematically to the FIU of each Member State concerned by the operation reported, other kind of information, such as threshold-based transactions defined at national level on specific situations considered at risk for money laundering and financing terrorism, with all relevant elements of information.
Amendment 438 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take all appropriate measures in order to protect whistle blowers and employees of the obliged entity who report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing either internally or to the FIU from being exposed to threats or hostile action.
Amendment 480 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Especially, when a FIU based in the Union wants to obtain additional information from an obliged entity of another Member State which operates on its territory, the request shall be addressed to the FIU of the Member State in whose territory the obliged entity is situated. This FIU shall transfer requests and answers promptly and without any filter.
Amendment 509 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 57 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 57 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that non- conviction based confiscation of property on the balance of probabilities, extended confiscation and confiscation from third parties should be extensively used. In all cases confiscation must be ordered by a court be it criminal or civil.
Amendment 5 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 6 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 11 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 11 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A
Paragraph A
A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting that the establishment of the European Parliament in more than one place be discontinuedEuropean Parliament should no longer have three places of work;
Amendment 23 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the protocols on the seats of the institutions are governed by mutual respect for the respective powers of the Member States and of Parliament;
Amendment 34 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it has further stated that there are disadvantages and costs engendered by the plurality of working locations, but also that any improvement of the current situation requires a Treaty change and, thus, the consent ofresponsibility for remedying this lies neither with Parliament nor with the Court, but, rather, by exercising their exclusive power to determine the seats of the institutions, with the Member States;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas on two occasions, in 1997 and 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union pointed out that the fact that Parliament’s seat is in Strasbourg is determined by the TFEU; whereas it has also confirmed Protocol No 6 in clarifying the conditions for the application thereof; whereas it has fully acknowledged the power of Parliament to determine its own internal organisational arrangements, since Parliament may adopt appropriate measures to ensure its proper functioning and proper conduct of its proceedings, but the question of determining its seat does not come within that remit;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
Amendment 37 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Parliament has undergone a complete transformation, from a consultative body with 78 seconded members that – mostly for practical reasons – shared its facilities with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, into a fully fledged, directly elected Parliament with 754 members thatcomprises 754 Members elected by direct universal suffrage and is today co-legislator on equal terms with the Council;
Amendment 39 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 40 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas this is most clearly illustrated by the growth of its legislative capacity, as reflec is illustrated inby the increase in the number of co-decision procedures (now ordinary legislative procedures) from 165 in 1993- 1999 to 454 in 2004-2009, to an even greater number in the current legislature;
Amendment 42 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the increase in legislative activity and responsibility is reflected in the fact that the number of statutory staff in Brussels increased by 377 % (from 1 180 to 5 635 staff members) from 1993 to 2013, by far exceeding the 48 % increase in the number of MEPs in the same periodincrease in staff at Parliament’s three places of work;
Amendment 43 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the structure of Parliament’s calendar (fixed during the Edinburgh Summit in 1992) predates all changes to its rolehas not been called into question, since it was confirmed in Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, and the increase in Parliament’s powers arising from the adoption of the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon has therefore been taken into account;
Amendment 46 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 47 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 47 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. whereas two judgments given by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 1997 and 2012 recalled that the TFEU locates the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg and whereas the conditions for the application of Protocol No 6 have been clarified;
Amendment 49 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the fact of geographical distance between the official seats of the co- legislative bodies – 435 km – isolates Parliament not only fromreflects the multi- centre principle with regard to the seats of the European institutions and, during part-sessions, the attention of the Council and the Commission, but also ofrom other stakeholders, such as NGOs, civil society organisations and Member State representations, and ofrom one of the world’s largest international journalistic communities, is fully focused on the work of Parliament;
Amendment 51 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 52 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C b (new)
Paragraph C b (new)
Cb. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 55 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C c (new)
Paragraph C c (new)
Cc. whereas Strasbourg has been the meeting place of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 1949 and then, from 1952, played host to the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community;
Amendment 57 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C d (new)
Paragraph C d (new)
Cd. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 58 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C e (new)
Paragraph C e (new)
Ce. whereas the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions is based on the principle of polycentrism;
Amendment 59 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M – footnote 5
Recital M – footnote 5
Amendment 59 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C f (new)
Paragraph C f (new)
Cf. whereas, if a debate is initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it will inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 64 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 67 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report on the location of the seats of the European Union’s institutions;
Amendment 68 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 72 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas Parliament, since its suggestion in 1958 to be sited in proximity to the Council and the Commission, has via numerous reports, declarations and statements alwaysoften expressed its wish for a more practical and efficient working arrangement;
Amendment 74 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 86 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 87 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputationNotes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg remains a positive symbol of European polycentrism;
Amendment 94 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Respects the historical reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the system of a single seat and three places of work;
Amendment 95 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union;
Amendment 96 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 97 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Considers that the choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 101 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 106 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that the Committee’s report was prepared under the ordinary own-initiative procedure and there is thus no obligation to implement the proposals, and further that the matter of the EU institutions’ seats is governed directly by the Treaties and is therefore subject to the political will of the Member States acting unanimously;
Amendment 118 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that this own-initiative report must not be used as a means of disregarding the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there;
Amendment 120 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Observes that, if a debate were initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it would inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of all the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 121 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system; nevertheless insists that such an arrangement cannot continue in perpetuity and that Parliament itself must be able to state a preference for its futuresystem of a single seat and three places of work;
Amendment 129 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Draws attention to the emblematic nature of the city of Strasbourg, symbolising as it does reconciliation between Germany and the other nations of Europe;
Amendment 135 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the European Union;
Amendment 139 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 141 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Considers that choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 153 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for Parliament to express its view as to whether the current arrangement should continue; and if an appropriate majority vote is Emphasises that the Committee’s report was prepared under the ordinary own- initiative procedure and there is thus no obligation to implement the proposals, and further that the matter of the EU institutions’ seats is governed directly by the Treaties and is therecforded, recommends that Parliament propose Treaty changes under Article 48.e subject to the political will of the Member States acting unanimously;
Amendment 157 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the own-initiative report cannot be used as means of circumventing the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there.
Amendment 2 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to the EU guidelines on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them
Amendment 20 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas many minors arrive in the EU because they are fleeing forced marriages, and whereas the EU must do more to combat this phenomenon;
Amendment 26 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas gender equality and the equal protection of human rights of unaccompanied migrant girls and boys must be ensured, and whereas special attention must be paid to the violation of human rights of girls and the provision of adequate support and appropriate remedies;
Amendment 33 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that an unaccompanied minor is above all a minor who is potentially in danger and that child protection, rather than immigration controlegardless of their migratory status, must be the major consideration for States and the European Union when dealing with them; .
Amendment 39 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls also that the overriding interests of the child, as enshrined in provisions and case-law, must take priority over any other consideration in any act taken with regard to them, whether by public authorities or by private institutions; calls on the Commission to propose a common definition and reference framework, based on a set of indices, to assess what constitutes the overriding interests of a child; and to implement legislative and non-legislative actions to ensure adequate protection of children and unaccompanied minors, in particular, improving methods of finding durable solutions.
Amendment 46 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the adoption by the Commission of an action plan on unaccompanied minors; deplores, however, the fact that the Commission's approach is not based more on protecting the fundamental rights of such minors and of the Mid- term report on the implementation of the Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors' (COM(2012)0554;
Amendment 53 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the lack of reliable official data on unaccompanied minors; calls on the Member States and the European Union to establish a coordinated method for gathering information in each Member State and to improve the comparability of data collection across EU Member States, by means of platforms bringing together all parties involved in the problem of unaccompanied minors, and to draw up a list of national contact points;
Amendment 56 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the lack of reliable official data on unaccompanied minors; calls on the Member States and the European Union to establish a coordinated method for gathering information in each Member State, by means of platforms bringing together all parties involved in the problem of unaccompanied minors, and to draw up a list of national contact pointsand sharing information, and to make better use of the existing tools available to collect statistics data at the European level, such as Fronted and EASO;
Amendment 57 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the lack of reliable official data on unaccompanied minors including age and gender disaggregated statistics; calls on the Member States and the European Union to establish a coordinated method for gathering information in each Member State, by means of platforms bringing together all parties involved in the problem of unaccompanied minors, and to draw up a list of national contact points;
Amendment 64 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the European Union and Member States ought to step up their cooperation with third countries of origin and transit concerning the problem of unaccompanied minors, preventing their arrival, combating trafficking, irregular immigration, forced marriages, restoration of family ties, return and readmission, in the context of the regular dialogues conducted between the European Union and these States and the European External Action Service (EEAS);
Amendment 65 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the European Union and Member States ought to step up their cooperation with third countries of origin and transit concerning the problem of unaccompanied minors, preventing their arrival, combating trafficking, irregular immigration, restoration of family ties, return and readmission, including in the context of the regular dialogues conducted between the European Union and these States and the European External Action Service (EEAS);
Amendment 70 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls the important role of civil society in the readmissions of unaccompanied minors in third countries; calls thus on Member States to increase cooperation also with local and international non governmental partners in the Country of origin in order to ensure safe returns for children.
Amendment 72 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that combating trafficking in human beings is a necessary first step, as minors are particularly confronted with the risks of trafficking and exploitation and because; underlines the importance of prevention by strengthening police and judiciary cooperation between Member States. Calls on the Member States to effectively implement Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims and Directive 2011/92/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; considers also that action should be taken in third countries to tackle the root causes of trafficking;
Amendment 75 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that combating trafficking in human beings is a necessary first step, as minors are particularly vulnerable to trafficking in human beings and confronted with the risks of trafficking and exploitation and because action should be taken in third countries to tackle the root causes of trafficking;. In this regard Member States and the European Union should cooperate with the EU-Anti- Trafficking Coordinator to detect potential victims, to sensitise the public and to combat trafficking in human beings.
Amendment 78 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that combating trafficking in human beings is a necessary first step, as minors and especially girls are particularly confronted with the risks of trafficking and exploitation and because action should be taken in third countries to tackle the root causes of trafficking;
Amendment 82 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Is concerned about the situation of many unaccompanied minors who live in hiding in the EU and who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse; calls on Member States' authorities and civil society organisations to work together and take all the necessary measures to ensure their protection and dignity.
Amendment 95 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to draw up binding strategic guidelines for use by all Member States, which should draw inspiration from their best practices, take the form of common minimum standards and detail each stage in the probuilding on the follow-up of the Action plan and on best practicess, from the arrival of a minor in European territory until an appropriate solution has been found for him;
Amendment 99 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to draw up binding strategic guidelines for use by all Member States, which should draw inspiration from their best practices, take the form of common minimum standards and detail each stage in the process, from the arrival of a minor in European territory until an appropriate solution has been found for him or her;
Amendment 116 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that each Member State has a responsibility to identify unaccompanied minors; calls on Member States to direct them immediately to specialist services which must, on the one hand, assess the individual circumstances and needs of each minor and, on the other hand, provide them with all the information they need, in a language and form they can understand; calls on Member States to share best practices on child friendly tools to clarify to the children the procedures and their rights;
Amendment 128 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Deplores the unsuitable and intrusive nature of the medical techniques used to ascertain age in some Member States; recommends that the Commission establish a common methodinclude in the strategic guidelines best practices for ascertaining age, consisting of a multidisciplinary assessment, performed by independent, trained practitioners, and with minors always being given the benefit of the doubt; considers that it should be possible to appeal against the results of this assessment; welcomes the work of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) on this subject, which should be taken as a basis for dealing with all minors;
Amendment 130 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Deplores the unsuitable and intrusive nature of the medical techniques used to ascertain age in some Member States; recommends that the Commission establish a common method for ascertaining age, consisting of a multidisciplinary assessment performed by independent, trained practitioners, and with minors always being given the benefit of the doubt; considers that it should be possible to appeal against the results of this assessment; welcomes the work of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) on this subject, which should be taken as a basis for dealing with all minors with particular attention to girls;
Amendment 136 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on Member States, as soon as a minor arrives within their territory and until a lasting solution has been found, to appoint a person responsible for accompanying, assisting and representing him in all procedures; calls furthermore for this person to have specific training in the problems associated with unaccompanied minors and to act completely independently; calls on the Commission to establish common standardinclude in the strategic guidelines best practices concerning the mandate, functions, qualifications and skills of this person;
Amendment 141 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on Member States, as soon as a minor arrives within their territory and until a lasting solution has been found, to appoint a person responsible for accompanying, assisting and representing him or her in all procedures; calls furthermore for this person to have specific training in the problems associated with unaccompanied minors and to act completely independently; calls on the Commission to establish common standards concerning the mandate, functions, qualifications and skills of this person;
Amendment 145 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – introductory part
Paragraph 16 – introductory part
16. CIn order to ensure consistency and equal standards in the protection of unaccompanied minors within the EU, calls on Member States to give unaccompanied minors, irrespective of their status and under the same conditions as children who are nationals of the host country:
Amendment 165 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – indent 4
Paragraph 16 – indent 4
– the right to health and the access to medical care;
Amendment 176 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the progress which has been made in asylum legislation; recalls, however, that unaccompanied minors should always be exempted from expedited procedures and from procedures at the border; recalls also that the State responsible forpackage concerning unaccompanied minors; calls on Member States to make the necessary legislative and asylum application by an unaccompanied mdministrative reforms in or should always be the State of the most recent asylum applicationder to implement it effectively;
Amendment 181 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Underlines that any decision concerning unaccompanied minors should be on the basis of an individual assessment and in respect of the best interest of the child;
Amendment 183 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Condemns the very precarious circumstances with which these minors are suddenly confronted when they reach the age of majority; calls on Member States to share best practices and institute procedures for assisting these minors in their transition to adulthood; welcomes the work of the Council of Europe on this subject and calls on the Commission to propose common standardinclude in its strategic guidelines best practices for the planning of ‘individualised life projects’ for, and with, the minor;
Amendment 191 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses firmly that the ultimate aim, once an unaccompanied minor has arrived in European territory, must be to seek an appropriate solution for him, which respects his best interests; recalls that efforts to achieve this must always begin with an examination of the possibilities of family reunification; calls on Member States to improve cooperation on family tracing and share best practices;
Amendment 196 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses firmly that the ultimate aim, once an unaccompanied minor has arrived in European territory, must be to seek an appropriate solution for him or her, which respects his or her interests; recalls that efforts to achieve this must always begin with an examination of the possibilities of family reunification;
Amendment 201 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to proposeinclude in its strategic guidelines a common reference framework outlining a series of conditions to be met before a minor can be returned, respecting the overriding interests of the child; reiterates in the strongest terms that no decision to return a minor may be taken if it endangers the minor's life, security or fundamental rights or those of his or her family, and that the individual circumstances of each minor must be taken into account; calls on Member States to establish monitoringcooperation arrangements to ensure the protection of minors after their return, in cooperation with countries of origin and transit;with countries of origin and transit and with international and local NGOs in order to ensure the protection of minors after their return.
Amendment 202 #
2012/2263(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to propose a common reference framework outlining a series of conditions to be met before a minor can be returned, respecting the overriding interests of the child; reiterates in the strongest terms that no decision to return a minor may be taken if it endangers the minor's life, security or fundamental rights or those of his or her family, and that the individual circumstances of each minor must be taken into account; calls on Member States to establish monitoring arrangements to ensure the protection of minors after their return, in cooperation with countries of origin and transit; calls on the European Union to commit to improve its response to end potential drivers of migration including early and forced marriage, harmful traditional practices including female genital mutilation and sexual violence worldwide;
Amendment 73 #
2012/2214(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Asks the agencies, in the interests of transparency and democratic scrutiny, including scrutiny by Parliament, to publish the minutes of their management board meetings on their websites;
Amendment 74 #
2012/2214(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
Paragraph 30 b (new)
30b. Suggests that a member of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control should be able to attend agency management board meetings as an observer;
Amendment 46 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Notes the Secretary-General’s reply indicating that European Parliament allowances covered 1 599 accredited assistants’ contracts and 2 868 local assistants’ contracts in 2011; is surprised that almost twice as many local assistants were employed as accredited assistants, even though the bulk of an MEP’s legislative work is done in Strasbourg and Brussels;
Amendment 66 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Notes the Secretary-General’s reply indicating that the cost of delegations, which can be as much as EUR 5 300 per MEP per day, is largely made up of transport costs; emphasises that the work associated with parliamentary activity is essentially done in Strasbourg and Brussels; suggests that the cost of delegations’ travel to third countries be made subject to an annual ceiling per Member;
Amendment 107 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 a (new)
Paragraph 69 a (new)
69a. Welcomes the new procedure enabling the recovery of overpayments following payments for hosting visitor groups; considers it a pity that the option of payment by bank transfer should be available only for transfers to personal accounts, with no provision for transfers to the accounts of organisations; is concerned about the significant security risk entailed in making cash payments to visitor groups, the sums in question being as much as EUR 30 000 plus, with Parliament distributing up to EUR 388 000 in a day; points out that Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing requires particular care to be taken with transactions involving sums of more than EUR 15 000, an amount that is regular exceeded in Parliament’s payments to visitors;
Amendment 17 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
– having regard to the ongoing infringement proceedings in Case C- 288/12 brought by the European Commission against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection authoritystill pending before the European Court of Justice,
Amendment 30 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas Article 4(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) stipulates that competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States;
Amendment 31 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), by virtue of the principle of conferral, allows the Union to act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas according to Article 7(1) TEU grants the EU institutions the power to assess whethermay determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the commonby a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 by a Member State, and to engage politically with the country concerned in order to prevent and redress violations, while the ultimate purpose of the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU is to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values; whereas before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure;
Amendment 44 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 61 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas any Member State of the European Union is absolutely free to review its constitution and whereas the very meaning of democratic alternation is that it enables a new government to enact legislation reflecting the will of its people and its values and political commitments;
Amendment 63 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas the tumultuous history of democratic traditions in Europe shows that reforming a constitution requires utmost care and due consideration of procedures and guarantees aimed at preserving, among other things, the rule of law, the separation of powers and the hierarchy of legal norms – the constitution being the supreme law of the land;
Amendment 70 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital W a (new)
Recital W a (new)
Wa. whereas the Commission, in the exercise of its responsibility for overseeing the application of Union law, has to show the utmost skill, respect the independence of others, and act diligently, swiftly, and without delay, especially when it is called upon to deal with a case in which a Member State may have committed a serious breach of Union values;
Amendment 87 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
Recital AA
AA. whereas, despitein the wake of that Decision, the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted on 11 March 2013, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law all the transitional provisions annulled by the Constitutional Court, with the exception of the provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously annulled provisions;
Amendment 105 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AG
Recital AG
AG. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related law1989 constitutional regime the newly established Hungarian Constitutional Court received the broadest possible powers thave been substantially limited to violations of an exhaustive list of rights, thus obstructing the review of constitutionality in cases of breaches of other fundamental rights, such as the right to propet can be delegated to a court of its kind, and whereas after twenty years of jurisprudence there was a broad consensus – even by members of the Court – that the powers of the Constitutional Court should be revised; and whereas in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courtys, the right to a fair trial and the right not to be discriminated against; which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);
Amendment 108 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AH
Recital AH
AH. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law left untouched the already existing right ofintroduces for the first time an explicit reference enabling the Constitutional Court to review amendments to the Fundamental Law on procedural grounds, and whereas it excludes in the future the Court being able to review constitutional amendments on substantive grounds; ; whereas the Constitutional Court never had competence to review constitutional amendments on substantive grounds stated by the Constitutional Court in its interpretation several times; and whereas the assessment of the Venice Commission on the review of constitutional amendments by constitutional courts concludes that this is a rare feature of constitutional jurisdiction, and that "such a control cannot therefore be considered as a requirement of the rule of law" (paragraph 49 of Opinion No. 679/2012 on the Revision of the Constitution of Belgium); and whereas in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal;
Amendment 117 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
Recital AM
AM. whereas the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Hungary on 8 June 2012, declaring that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC by removing the data protection supervisor from office before the end of the mandate, thus putting at risk the independence of the off; whereas the case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 156 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ
Recital BQ
BQ. whereas the Fourth Amendment imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advertensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) on an equal basis and free of charge, and it does not affect at all political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); whereas similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy and was also recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in one of its recent judgments; and whereas the Hungarian Government is ing in the public media consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising;
Amendment 194 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic procthe "Union is founded on the valuess of enacting laws, and for a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition are key elements of the concepts of democracy and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and proclaimed in the Preambles to both the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter,respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 195 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Firmly reiterates that, while the drafting and the adoption of a new constitution falls within the scope of Member States’ competences, Member States and the EU have the responsibility to ensure that the constitutional processes and the contents of constitutions are in conformity with the commitments entered into by every Member State under the EU Accession Treaties, that is to say, the common values of the Union, the Charter and the ECHR;
Amendment 213 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the common values of the Union of democracy and the rule of law require a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition and that according to Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR elections should guarantee the 'expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislator‘', which is the very case in Hungary;
Amendment 225 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. SharUnderlines the opinion of the Venice Commission (No CDL-AD(2012)01)016), according to which the adoption of a large amount of legislation in a very short time frame could explain why some of the new provisions do not comply with European standards; which "welcomes the fact that this new Constitution establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles. It notes that constitutions of other European States, such as Poland, Finland, Switzerland or Austria, have been used as a source of inspiration. A particular effort has been made to follow closely the technique and the contents of the ECHR and to some extent the EU Charter.";
Amendment 231 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the limitation of constitutional jurisdiction relating to the laws on the central budget and taxes is in contradiction with the requirements of democracy, the rule of law and the principle of judicial review, as it weakens the institutional and procedural guarantees for the protection of a number of constitutional rights and for controlling the parliament's and the government's powers in the budgetary fielcontrol of central budget by constitutional courts is not a common European standard;
Amendment 246 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is deeply concerned about this shift of powers in constitutional matters to the advantage of the parliament and to the detriment of the Constitutional Court, which severely undermineUnderlines that according to rule of law a democratically elected Parliament has the right and duty to adopt the Constitution and Laws, and the Constitutional Court has the principle of separation of powers and a correctly functioning systemght and duty to safeguard the compatibility of cthecks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law laws with the Constitution;
Amendment 256 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the factTakes note that the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection supervisor, which case is currently pending at the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 287 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Expresses concern at the effects of the proTakes note that the Fourth Amendment ensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) of the Fourth Amendment banning political advertising in the commercialn an equal basis and free of charge with the aim to create equal opportunities for the political parties in the electronic media, as although the announced aim of this provision is to reduce political campaign costs and create equal opportunities for the parties, it jeopardises the provision of balanced informationwell as reduce campaign costs and contribute to the transparency and verifiability of campaign financing; this does not at all affect political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); takes note that the Hungarian Government is in consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising; underlines that a similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy;
Amendment 297 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Is concerUnderlineds that public service broadcasting is controlled by an extremely centralised institutional system which takes the real operational decisions without publin line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the Treaty (on the System of the Public Broadcasting in the Members States) the system of the public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, scrutiny; underlines that biased and opaque tendering practices and the biased information ofocial and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism, and Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting reaching a wide audience distort the media marketay they deem appropriate;
Amendment 301 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech; points out, however, that legislation on its own cannotconsiders that the adopted legislative measures are the most important starting point to achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe, as concrete measures can only be built upon firm legislation;
Amendment 324 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. ReaffirmsTakes note of the fact that its present resolution is not only about Hungary, but inseparably about the European Union as a whole, and its democalthough several issues raised are present in the legal system and practic reconstruction and development after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family, its common values and standards, its inclusiveness and its capacity to engage in dialogue. It is about the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to. It is about the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its citizens and Member States need to havee of several Member States; Regrets that the principle detailed in Article 4(2) - according to which "the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent ifn these Treaties are to be more than just words on paper but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respecting fundamental rightsir fundamental structures, political and constitutional" - was not taken into account;
Amendment 333 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 350 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Considers that the European Council cannot remain inactive in cases where one of the Member States is faced with changes that may negatively affect thebreaches the concrete fundamental rights or rule of law in that country, and therefore the rule of law in the European Union at large, in particular when mutual trust in the legal system and judicial cooperation may be put at risks it affects negatively the European Union; stresses furthermore that the European Council cannot use double standards when looking at Member States and its infringements;
Amendment 354 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – introductory part
Paragraph 60 – introductory part
60. Calls on the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties: and as the body responsible for ensuring that Union law is correctly applied, under the supervision of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 360 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 3
Paragraph 60 – indent 3
– to focus not only on specific infringements of EU law to be remedied notably through Article 258 TFEU, but to draw the consequences of a systemic change of the constitutional and legal system of a Member State where multiple and recurrent infringements unfortunately result in a state of legal uncertainty which not longer meets the requirements of Article 2 TEUas this is what is in its mandate under the Treaty;
Amendment 361 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
– to adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing any potential risks of serious breach of fundamental values in a given Member State at an early stage and immediately to engage in a structured political dialogue with the relevant Member State and the other EU institutions without applying double standards; this structured political dialogue should be coordinated at the highest political level of the Commission and have a clear impact on the full spectrum of negotiations between the Commission and the Member State concerned in the various EU fields;
Amendment 369 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
– to regularly monitor the correct functioning of the European area of justice and to take action when the independence of the judiciary is put at risk in any Member State without applying double standards, with a view to avoiding the weakening of mutual trust between national judicial authorities, which would inevitably create obstacles to the correct application of the EU instruments on mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation;
Amendment 396 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) This regulation recognises that pseudonymisation is in the benefit of all data subjects as, by definition, personal data is altered so that it of itself cannot be attributed to a data subject without the use additional data. By this, controllers should be encouraged to the practice of pseudonymising data.
Amendment 414 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Consent should be given explicitunambiguously by any appropriate method within the context of the product or the service being offered enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the data subject’s wishes, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action by the data subject, ensuring that individuals are aware that they give their consent to the processing of personal data, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website or by any other statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance of the proposed processing of their personal data. Silence or inactivity should therefore not constitute consent. This nevertheless leaves the provisions of 2002/58/EC untouched which state that under certain circumstances consent can be expressed via appropriate settings in the user’s device. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. If the data subject’s consent is to be given following an electronic request, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.
Amendment 420 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Personal data relating to health should include in particular all personal data pertaining to the health status of a data subject including genetic information; information about the registration of the individual for the provision of health services; information about payments or eligibility for healthcare with respect to the individual; a number, symbol or particular assigned to an individual to uniquely identify the individual for health purposes; any information about the individual collected in the course of the provision of health services to the individual; informationpersonal data derived from the testing or examination of a body part or, bodily substance, including or biological samples; identification of a person as provider of healthcare to the individual; or any information on e.g. a disease, disability, disease risk, medical history, clinical treatment, or the actual physiological or biomedical state of the data subject independent of its source, such as e.g. from a physician or other health professional, a hospital, a medical device, or an in vitro diagnostic test.
Amendment 423 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) TWhere a controller or a processor has multiple establishments in the Union, including but not limited to cases where the controller or the processor is a group of undertakings, the main establishment of a controller in the Union for the purposes of this Regulation should be determined according to objective criteria and should imply the effective and real exercise of management activities determining the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of processing through stable arrangements. This criterion should not depend whether the processing of personal data is actually carried out at that location; the presence and use of technical means and technologies for processing personal data or processing activities do not, in themselves, constitute such main establishment and are therefore not determining criteria for a main establishment. The main establishment of the processor should be the place of its central administrationA group of undertakings may nominate a single main establishment in the Union.
Amendment 443 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 455 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) The legitimate interests of a controller or the third party to which the data have been transferred may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding. This would need careful assessment in particular where the data subject is a child, given that children deserve specific protection. The data subject should have the right to object the processing, on grounds relating to their particular situation and free of charge. To ensure transparency, the controller should be obliged to explicitly inform the data subject on the legitimate interests pursued and on the right to object, and also be obliged to document these legitimate interests. Given that it is for the legislator to provide by law the legal basis for public authorities to process data, this legal ground should not apply for the processing by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
Amendment 467 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) The processing of personal data for other purposes should be only allowed where the processing is compatible with those purposes for which the data have been initially collected, in particular where the processing is necessary for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes. Where the other purpose is not compatible with the initial one for which the data are collected, the controller should obtain the consent of the data subject for this other purpose or should base the processing on another legitimate ground for lawful processing, in particular where provided by Union law or the law of the Member State to which the controller is subject. In any case, the application of the principles set out by this Regulation and in particular the information of the data subject on those other purposes should be ensured.
Amendment 497 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) Any person should have the right to have personal data concerning them rectified and a ‘the right to be forgotten’have such personal data erased where the retention of such data is not in compliance with this Regulation. In particular, data subjects should have the right that their personal data are erased and no longer processed, where the data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which the data are collected or otherwise processed, where data subjects have withdrawn their consent for processing or where they object to the processing of personal data concerning them or where the processing of their personal data otherwise does not comply with this Regulation. This right is particularly relevant, when the data subject has given their consent as a child, when not being fully aware of the risks involved by the processing, and later wants to remove such personal data especially on the Internet. However, the further retention of the data should be allowed where it is necessary for historical, statistical and scientific research purposes, for rheasons of public interlth purposest in the area of public healthaccordance with Article 81, for exercising the right of freedom of expression, when required by law or where there is a reason to restrict the processing of the data instead of erasing them. Also, the right to erasure should not apply when the retention of personal data is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject, or when there is a regulatory requirement to retain this data, or for the prevention of financial crime.
Amendment 513 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Every natural and legal person should have the right not to be subject to a measure which is based on profiling by means of automated processing. However, such measure and which produces legal effects concerning that natural or legal person or significantly affects that natural or legal person. Actual effects should be comparable in their intensity to legal effects to fall under this provision. This is not the case for measures relating to commercial communication, like for example in the field of customer relationship management or customer acquisition. However, a measure based on profiling by automated data processing and which produces legal effects concerning a natural or legal person or significantly affects a natural person should be allowed when expressly authorised by law, carried out in the course of entering or performance of a contract, or when the data subject has given his consent. In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, including specific information of the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention and that such measure should not concern a child.
Amendment 524 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) The protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects as well as the responsibility and liability of controllers and processor, also in relation to the monitoring by and measures of supervisory authorities, requires a clear attribution of the responsibilities under this Regulation, including where a controller determines the purposes, conditions and means of the processing jointly with other controllers or where a processing operation is carried out on behalf of a controller.
Amendment 532 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
(65) In order to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation, the controller or processor should document each processing operation under its responsibility. Each controller and processor should be obliged to co-operate with the supervisory authority and make this documentation, on request, available to it, so that it might serve for monitoring those processing operations.
Amendment 630 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 121
Recital 121
(121) The processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, or for the purposes of artistic or literary expression should qualify for exemption from the requirements of certain provisions of this Regulation in order to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression, and notably the right to receive and impart information, as guaranteed in particular by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This should apply in particular to processing of personal data in the audiovisual field and in news archives and press libraries. Therefore, Member States should adopt legislative measures, which should lay down exemptions and derogations which are necessary for the purpose of balancing these fundamental rights. Such exemptions and derogations should be adopted by the Member States on general principles, on the rights of the data subject, on controller and processor, on the transfer of data to third countries or international organisations, on the independent supervisory authorities and on co-operation and consistency. This should not, however, lead Member States to lay down exemptions from the other provisions of this Regulation. In order to take account of the importance of the right to freedom of expression in every democratic society, it is necessary to interpret notions relating to that freedom, such as journalism, broadly. Therefore, Member States should classify activities as ‘journalistic’ for the purpose of the exemptions and derogations to be laid down under this Regulation if the object of these activities is the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium which is used to transmit them. They should not be limited to media undertakings and may be undertaken for profit-making or for non- profit making purposes.
Amendment 696 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e c (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e c (new)
(ec) which have been rendered anonymous;
Amendment 717 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘data subject’ means an identified natural person or a natural person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by means reasonably likely to be used by the controller or by any other natural or legal person working together with the controller, in particular by reference to an identification number, location data, online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that person; and who is not acting in his/her professional capacity;
Amendment 730 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
(2a) ‘pseudonymous data’ means any personal data that has been collected, altered or otherwise processed so that it of itself cannot be attributed to a data subject without the use of additional data which is subject to separate and distinct technical and organisational controls to ensure such non attribution, or that such attribution would require a disproportionate amount of time, expense and effort;
Amendment 734 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 b (new)
(2b) ‘anonymous data’ means any personal data that has been collected, altered or otherwise processed in such a way that it can no longer be attributed to a data subject; anonymous data shall not be considered personal data;
Amendment 748 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) ‘controller’ means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes, conditions and means of processing are determined by Union law or Member State law, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by Union law or by Member State law;
Amendment 765 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘the data subject’s consent’ means any freely given specific, informed and explicitunambiguous indication of his or her wishes by which the data subject, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to personal data relating to them being processed; Silence or inactivity does not in itself indicate acceptance;
Amendment 786 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 13
(13) ‘main establishment’ means as regards the controller, the place of its establishment in the Union where the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and meansthe location as determined by the data controller or data processor on the basis of the following transparent and objective criteria: the location of the pgrocessing of personal data are taken; if no decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken in the Union, the main establishment is the place where the main processing activities in the context of the activities ofup’s European headquarters, or, the location of the company within the group with delegated data protection responsibilities, or, the location of the company which is best placed (in terms of management function, administrative capability etc) to address and establishment of a controller in the Union take place. As regards the processor, ‘main establishment’ means the place of its central administration in the Unionnforce the rules as set out in this Regulation, or, the place where the main decisions as to the purposes of processing are taken for the regional group;
Amendment 864 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller, the group of companies of which the controller is a member or any other member of that group of companies is subject;
Amendment 878 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller, or on behalf of a controller or a processor, or by a third party or parties in whose interest the data is processed, including for the security of processing, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply tosuch as in the case of processing data pertaining to a child. The interest or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject shall not override processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
Amendment 890 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the data are collected from public registers lists or documents accessible by everyone;
Amendment 898 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f c (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f c (new)
(fc) processing is limited to pseudonymised data, where the data subject is adequately protected and the recipient of the service is given a right to object pursuant to Article 19(3);
Amendment 900 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f d (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f d (new)
(fd) processing is necessary for the purpose of anonymisation or pseudonymisation of personal data;
Amendment 921 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Processing of pseudonymised data to safeguard the legitimate interests pursued by a controller shall be lawful, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
Amendment 945 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Where the purpose of further processing is not compatible with the one for which the personal data have been collected, the processing must have a legal basis at least in one of the grounds referred to in points (a) to (e) of paragraph 1. This shall in particular apply to any change of terms and general conditions of a contract.
Amendment 964 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Amendment 988 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1048 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) processing is necessary for the performance or execution of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;
Amendment 1062 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims or the legally justified fulfilment of claims of third parties affected; or
Amendment 1084 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point j a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point j a (new)
(ja) processing of data concerning health is necessary for private social protection, especially by providing income security or tools to manage risks that are in the interests of the data subject and his or her dependants and assets, or by enhancing inter-generational equity by means of distribution.
Amendment 1103 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
If the data processed by a controller do not permit the controller or a processor to identify a natural person, in particular when rendered anonymous or pseudononymous the controller shall not be obliged to process or acquire additional information in order to identify the data subject for the sole purpose of complying with any provision of this Regulation.
Amendment 1176 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected, the controller shall provide the data subject with at least the following information:. The following paragraphs do not apply to small enterprises in the course of their own activity and for data which is strictly and exclusively for their internal use.
Amendment 1180 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, if any, of the controller's representative and of the data protection officer;
Amendment 1189 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended, including the contract terms and general conditions where the processing is based on point (b) of Article 6(1) and the legitimate interests pursued by the controller where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1);
Amendment 1193 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 1201 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the existence of the right to request from the controller access to and rectification or erasure of the personal data concerning the data subject orand to object to the processing of such personal data;
Amendment 1203 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 1215 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 1222 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Where the personal data are collected from the data subject, the controller shall inform the data subject, in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, whether the provision of personal data is obligatory or voluntary, as well as the possible consequences of failure to provide such data.
Amendment 1238 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) where the personal data are not collected from the data subject, at the time of the recording or within a reasonable period after the collection, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are collected or otherwise processed, or, if a disclosure to another recipient is envisaged, and at the latest when the data are first disclosed; or, if the data shall be used for communication with the person concerned, at the latest at the time of the first communication to that person.
Amendment 1248 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the data are not collected from the data subject or the data processes do not allow the verification of identity and the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort such as by generating excessive administrative burden, especially when the processing is carried out by a SME; or
Amendment 1250 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) the data are not collected from the data subject and recording or disclosure is expressly laid down by law; or
Amendment 1253 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) the data are not collected from the data subject and the provision of such information will impair the rights and freedoms of others, as defined in Union law or Member State law in accordance with Article 21.; or
Amendment 1262 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
(da) the data originates from publicly available sources; or
Amendment 1266 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)
(db) the data must be kept secret in accordance with legislation or by virtue of their nature, particularly because of a legitimate overriding interest of a third party.
Amendment 1268 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d c (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d c (new)
(dc) the data are processed in the exercise of his profession by, or are entrusted or become known to, a person who is subject to an obligation of professional secrecy regulated by the State or to a statutory obligation of secrecy.
Amendment 1279 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7
Article 14 – paragraph 7
Amendment 1296 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TOnly the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller at any time, on request, confirmation as to whether or not personal data relating to the data subject are being processed unless this request is manifestly excessive according to 12 (4). Where such personal data are being processed, the controller shall - so far as the data subject has not received - provide the following information:
Amendment 1311 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) if known the period for which the personal data will be stored;
Amendment 1324 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1345 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Successors in right and title must be able to exercise the right of access to data in the event of the death of the data subject.
Amendment 1357 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 86 for the purpose of further specifying the criteria and requirements for the communication to the data subject of the contentdata subject shall have the right, where personal data are processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format, to obtain from the controller a copy of data which were provided by the data subject itself and that undergoing processing in an electronic and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject. This right shall not restrict rights of others as trade secrets or intellectual property rights. This does not apply on the processing of anonymised and pseudonymised data, insofar as the data subject is not sufficiently identifiable ofn the personal data referbasis of such data or identification would required to in point (g) of paragraph 1he controller to undo the process of pseudonymisation.
Amendment 1358 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. There shall be no right to information where: (a) data are involved which a person bound by professional secrecy is required to protect; (b) data must be kept secret in accordance with legislation or by virtue of their nature, particularly because of the overriding interest of a third party; (c) the public entity responsible has ascertained in relation to the entity responsible that disclosure of the data would endanger public safety or order; (d) data comprise trade secrets.
Amendment 1376 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 shall not apply to pseudonymous data.
Amendment 1377 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Successors in right and title must be able to exercise the right of rectification in the event of the death of the data subject.
Amendment 1407 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Successors in right and title must be able to exercise the right of erasure in the event of the death of the data subject.
Amendment 1420 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Where the controller referred to in paragraph 1 has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication. Anonymised data, pseudonymised data and encrypted data are exempted, where compliance with this provision would require the controller to undo the process of anonymisation, pseudonymisation or encryption.
Amendment 1492 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Article 18
Amendment 1537 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. Where personal data are processed for direct marketing purposes, the data subject shall have the right to object free of charge to the processing of their personal data for such marketing. This right shall be explicitly offered to the data subject in an intelligible manner and shall be clearly distinguishable from other information. This right shall include a right to object to the collection and use of personal data obtained through online tracking of the data subject's preferences and behaviour across websites. Where a data subject expresses this right to object through technical means, such as a browser setting, controllers and processors shall respect such objection, consistent with technical industry standards, and must obtain the consent of the data subject to process personal data derived from online tracking for marketing purposes. Consent to online tracking shall enable persistent online tracking across all websites unless such consent is subsequently revoked by the data subject.
Amendment 1543 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where pseudonymised data is processed pursuant to Article 6(1) the data subject shall have the right to object free of charge. This right shall be offered to the data subject in an intelligible manner and shall be clearly distinguishable from other information.
Amendment 1549 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Every ndatural persona subject shall have the right not to be subject to a measureprocessing of personal data which produces adverse legal effects concerning this ndatural person or significanta subject or comparably affects this natural person, and which is based solely on automated processing intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to this ndatural persona subject or to analyse or predict in particular the ndatural persona subject's performance at work, economic situation, location, health, personal preferences, reliability or behaviour.
Amendment 1585 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) is limited to pseudonymised data. Such pseudonymised data must not be collated with data on the bearer of the pseudonym. Article19(3a) shall apply correspondingly.
Amendment 1598 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. Automated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural person shall not be based solely on the special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9. unless the data subject has given consent.
Amendment 1616 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1750 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Where a controller determines the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data jointly with others, the joint controllers shall determine their respective responsibilities for compliance with the obligations under this Regulation, in particular as regards the procedures and mechanisms for exercising the rights of the data subject, by means of an arrangement between them.
Amendment 1778 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The carrying out of processing by a processor shall be governed by a contract or other legal act binding the processor to the controller and stipulating in particular that the processor shall. The controller and the processor shall be free to determine respective roles and responsibilities with respect to the requirements of this Regulation and shall provide for the following:
Amendment 1784 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 1788 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 1792 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point f
Amendment 1796 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point g
Amendment 1804 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point h
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point h
(h) make available to the controller and the supervisory authority on request all information necessary to control compliance with the obligations laid down in this Article.
Amendment 1821 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
Article 26 – paragraph 5
Amendment 2193 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. In the case referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, a group of undertakings may appoint a single data protection officer. A corporate group may also appoint a single data protection officer for one or more processing operations by several organisations within it.
Amendment 2208 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 4 a(new)
Article 35 – paragraph 4 a(new)
4a. Where the controller belongs to a professional body or a body of controllers from the same sector, he may appoint a data protection officer duly mandated by the body concerned.
Amendment 2229 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 7
Article 35 – paragraph 7
7. The controller or the processor shall designate a data protection officer for a period of at least two years at a suitable hierarchical level. The data protection officer may be reappointed for further terms. During their term of office, the data protection officer may only be dismissed, if the data protection officer no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of their duties.
Amendment 2573 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 a (new)
Article 49 a (new)
Amendment 2596 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3
Article 51 – paragraph 3
3. The supervisory authority shall not be competent to supervise processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity and not competent to supervise processing operations of controllers bound by obligations of professional secrecy.
Amendment 2813 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 76 – paragraph 1
Article 76 – paragraph 1
Amendment 2825 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 1
Article 77 – paragraph 1
1. Any person who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful processing operation or of an action incompatible with this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or the processor for the damage suffered.
Amendment 2830 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2
Article 77 – paragraph 2
2. Where more than one controller or processor is involved in the processing, each controller or processor shall be jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the damage, notwithstanding the contractual agreement they might have concluded according to Article 24.
Amendment 2837 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 3
Article 77 – paragraph 3
3. The controller or the processor may be exempted from this liability, in whole or in part, if the controller or the processor proves that they are not responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.
Amendment 2876 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 79 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. In case of a first and non-intentional non-compliance with this Regulation, a warning in writing may be given and no sanction imposed, where: (a) a natural person is processing personal data without a commercial interest; or (b) an enterprise or an organisation employing fewer than 250 persons is processing personal data only as an activity ancillary to its main activities.
Amendment 2959 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1
Article 80 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions on the Chapter II (general principles in), Chapter II, I (the rights of the data subject in), Chapter III, onV (the controller and processor in), Chapter IV, on the V (transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations in), Chapter V, the independent I (supervisory authorities in), Chapter VI and on I (co-operation and consistency in) and Articles 73, 74, 76 and 79 of Chapters VII forI (legal remedies, liability and penalties) and X shall not apply to the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression in order to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the rules governing freedom of expression.
Amendment 3058 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the personal data is processed for the purpose of generating aggregate data reports, wholly composed of either anonymous data, pseudonymous data or both.
Amendment 3082 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 83 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the data subject has given consent, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 7; or
Amendment 3098 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1
Article 84 – paragraph 1
1. Within the limits of this Regulation, Member States mayshall adopt specific rules to set out the investigative powers by the supervisory authorities laid down in Article 53(2) in relation to controllers or processors that are subjects under national law or rules established by national competent bodies to an obligation of professional secrecy or other equivalent obligations of secrecy, where this is necessary and proportionate to reconcile the right of the protection of personal data with the obligation of secrecy. These rules shall only apply with regard to personal data which the controller or processor has received from or has obtained in an activity covered by this obligation of secrecy.
Amendment 1837 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Each controller and processor and, if any, the controller's representative, shall maintain documentation of all processing operations under its responsibility.
Amendment 1884 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3
Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. The controller and the processor and, if any, the controller's representative, shall make the documentation available, on request, to the supervisory authority.
Amendment 1911 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5
Article 28 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1924 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. The controller and the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, including pseudonymisation, to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature of the personal data to be protected, having regard to the state of the art and the costs of their implementation.
Amendment 1957 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where relating to special categories of personal data, personal data which are subject to profeassible, not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify theonal secrecy, personal data relating to criminal offences or to the suspicion of a criminal act or personal data breach to the supervisory authority. The notification to the supervisory authority shall be accompanied by a reasoned justification in cases where it is not made within 24 hourslating to bank or credit card accounts, which seriously threaten the rights or legitimate interests of the data subject, the controller shall without undue delay notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority.
Amendment 1987 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1999 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. When the personal data breach is likely to adversely affect the protection of the personal data or, the privacy, the right or the legitimate interests of the data subject, the controller shall, after the notification referred to in Article 31, communicate the personal data breach to the data subject without undue delay. A breach should be considered as adversely affecting the personal data or privacy of a data subject where it could result in, for example, identity theft or fraud, physical harm, significant humiliation or damage to reputation.
Amendment 2003 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. The communication of a personal data breach to the data subject shall not be required if the controller demonstrates to the satisfaction of the supervisory authority that itdata breach has not produced significant harm and the controller has implemented appropriate technological protection measures, and that those measures were applied to the data concerned by the personal data breach. Such technological protection measures shall render the data unintelligible, unusable or anonymised to any person who is not authorised to access to it.
Amendment 2037 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 2055 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4
Article 33 – paragraph 4
Amendment 53 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 67 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that designations of origin constitute a crucial part of the European heritage which needs to be preserved; believes that they offer a guarantee of quality and help consumers choose from the range of goods on offer; considers there is a need to clarify the distinction between trademarks anbetter explain the differences between trademarks and designation of origin and to take measures to enable the existing Community rules preventing registration of a trademark containing or referring to protected designations of origin (PDOs)/protected geographical indications (PGIs) by operators who do not represent the producer organisations of those PDOs/PGIs to be applied in practice;
Amendment 69 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that designations of origin constitute a crucial part of the European heritage which needs to be preserved; believes that they offer a guarantee of quality and because of its crucial economic power and because it has a key socio-economic impact on many European regions; believes that they offer a guarantee of quality which must be reinforced, particularly by stricter control over the management of designations of origin by the applicant groups representing them; considers that they help consumers choose from the range of goods on offer; considers there is a need to clarify the distinction between trademarks and designation of origin;
Amendment 74 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Considers that groups applying for PGI must have access to the tools to manage their production volume in order to maintain the quality and reputation of their PGI;
Amendment 79 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Advocates the establishment of Community rules enabling groups applying for PGI to set the conditions for packaging their PGI and using its name in the sales name of processed products;
Amendment 80 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Favours simplifying the procedure for registering designations of origin and reducing the time required for obtaining them; believes one means of achieving this would be to delegate responsibility to the competent national bodies;
Amendment 84 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the degree of protection of designations of origin varies between Member States; advocates legislative and procedural harmonisation in this field, and in particular of the rules on application of ex officio protection;
Amendment 87 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Believes that the international protection of designations of origin should be guaranteed in the world trade negotiations; calls on the Commission to ensstrengthened; calls on the Commission to step up its efforts, particularly at the political level, to bring about an improvement in PGI protection in the course that the issue isof the WTO talks (either by extending the protection under Article 23 onf the agenda for the WTO talks and is recognised as such by all international partnersAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to all products, or by establishing a multilateral register of PGIs), and also in the accession negotiations for new member countries joining the WTO and bilateral agreements currently being negotiated;
Amendment 97 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Hopes that the Commission will continue to promote the concept of PGI with non-member States, particularly by undertaking more technical assistance missions in conjunction with PGI producer groups;
Amendment 3 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Regrets that the EDF has not yet been included in the accounting system already used by the Commission and urges that this new accounting system be introduced by the beginning of 2009;
Amendment 4 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Notes that the Court of Auditors, in the course of checking transactions, was unable to obtain the relevant documentation from United Nations bodies in the case of two payments (out of a sample of eleven); calls on the Commission, therefore, to ensure full compliance with the financial and administrative framework agreement;
Amendment 5 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. IRegards the Commission's answers as unsatisfactory in that it seems reluctant to review the arrangements it has put in place, and invites the Commission to give more precise information as to the notion of "reasonable assurance" and, in particular, as regards the actual cost/benefit ratio of controls and the actual error rate, as well as a breakdown indicating which additional human and financial resources are necessary to improve the control system in order to allow the Court to give the mark "effective" as the overall assessment;
Amendment 6 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Notes that the Court of Auditors highlights the inadequacy of the controls carried out by supervisors or auditors, which indicates the weaknesses in the supervisory and control systems; calls on the Commission, therefore, to tighten up its controls and, in particular, to introduce a system of reviewing external audit reports to check their quality;
Amendment 12 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 - indents 6 a to 6 c (new)
Paragraph 35 - indents 6 a to 6 c (new)
Amendment 13 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36 a. Also invites the Commission to introduce annual monitoring of this risk;
Amendment 14 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53 a. Calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to increase the number of staff allocated to the EDF's management and control structures in view of the anticipated increase in the volume of commitments under the Tenth EDF;
Amendment 15 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 a (new)
Paragraph 66 a (new)
66 a. Reaffirms its support for the incorporation of the EDF into the general budget of the European Union, which it considers would make it possible to enhance the coherence, transparency and effectiveness of the EDF and strengthen its oversight system;
Amendment 7 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 12 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas mountains are 'multifunctional' habitats, in which the (agricultural) economy is closely tied to social, cultural and ecological issues, and whereas such areas should therefore be given support in the form of appropriate funding,
Amendment 26 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. emphasises the need for a broad European definition of mountain areas based on scientific criteria, that can also be used in re-assessing 'Less Favoured Areas' and in reforming the CAP and that distinguishes between mountain areas and less favoured areas;
Amendment 30 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. emphasises the role played by hill and mountain farming in production and the cross-sectoral maintenance and utilisation of landscapes, and as a multifunctional basis for other sectors of the economy and characteristic feature of traditional cultural landscapes and social fabrics; points, accordingly, to the need to support hill and mountain farming by providing appropriate funding;
Amendment 42 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. emphasises that compensatory payments for natural disadvantages and for additional costs as a result of farming difficulties in mountain areas are also justified in the longer term due to the lack of alternative production and that full decoupling would lead to a systematic reduction in activity affecting all sectors;
Amendment 43 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. emphasises that compensatory payments earmarked primarily for producers and processors in mountain areas are also justified in the longer term due to the lack of alternative production and that full decoupling would lead to a systematic reduction in activity affecting all sectors;
Amendment 51 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. emphasises that producer associations in the broad sense of the term (economic interest groupings, milk groups, processing cooperatives, SMEs, etc.) make an important contribution to the stability and security of agricultural production and should be given greater support;
Amendment 57 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. calls for special financial assistance for the dairy sector (dairy farmers and processors) which plays a key role in mountain areas given the lack of alternative production; calls for a "soft landing" strategy to be adopted for mountain areas during the milk quota reform, and for additional measures to reduce any negative impact;
Amendment 59 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. points out that SMEundertakings in mountain areas produce high quality products by making new use of traditional know-how and manufacturing procedures, and play a key role in the field of employment, and should thus be included in EU aid systems;
Amendment 73 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. calls for guaranteed financial assistance for mountain regions, in accordance with, inter alia, Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, and specific access to this assistance with minimum red tape, and for the upper limit for resources under Article 69 to be raised to 20%;
Amendment 84 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses that grass premiums are essential to the continuation of farming in mountain areas and should therefore be maintained;
Amendment 86 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. emphasises the importance of a long- term forestry strategy that takes into account the natural life cycle and natural composition of the forest ecosystem, and creates compensatory mechanisms for crisis situations (e.g. storms) and incentives for integrated forest management; points to the scope for sustainable transformation and exploitation of timber and timber products from mountain regions (as high- quality products with low shipping costs and hence CO2 savings, construction materials and second-generation biofuels);
Amendment 109 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. calls for mountain areas to be given support in the areas of transport management, noise protection and landscape conservation through measures aimed at taking traffic off the roads (e.g. more 'sensitive areas' in the 'Infrastructure Charging Directive' ), except for the purpose of milk collection, which is a special case;
Amendment 111 #
2008/2066(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. emphasises that, through the intelligent use of many different sources of energy, mountain areas are "models" for a diversified energy mix, energy-efficient building solutions and second generation biofuels, and support should be given to research work in these fields; stresses, nonetheless, that the development of second generation biofuels must not give rise to competition between areas given over to feedstock production (fallow land, coppices, etc.) and grazing areas;
Amendment 135 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) It iswill be necessary to include specific invertebrate species within the scope of this Directive, as there isoon as scientific evidence is available of the potential ability of such species to experience pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm.
Amendment 137 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) This Directive should also cover embryonic and foetal forms of vertebrate animals which are intended to come to term, when it has been scientifically shown that their nervous system is capable of registering pain signals, as there is scientific evidence showing that such forms in the last third of their development have an increased risk of experiencing pain, suffering and distress, which may also affect negatively their subsequent development. Scientific evidence has also shown that procedures on embryonic and foetal forms of mammals at an earlier stage of development could result in pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, should the developmental forms be allowed to live beyond the first two thirds of their development.
Amendment 142 #
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-points 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 144 #
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 highly developed social skills 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 a strict scientific review and ethical evaluation taking account of the specific characteristics of these species.
Amendment 146 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The capture of non-human primates from the wild is highly stressful for the animals and increases the risk of injury and suffering during capture and transport. In orderWith a view to gradually ending the capturing of animals from the wild for breeding purposes, only animals that are the offspring of an animal which has been bred in captivity should be made available for use in scientific procedures as soon as possible. Establishments breeding and supplying non-human primates should therefore have a strategy in place to support and facilitate the progressive move towards that goala full study should be carried out into the technical, scientific and economic feasibility of this process. Investigations should also be made into its effects – both positive and negative – on animal welfare, and consideration should be given to the European Union’s potential long-term sources of supply. Concurrently with the study called for above, the Commission and the Member States should also take the necessary measures to support appropriate transport conditions for non-human primates in the territory of the European Union.
Amendment 149 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) From the ethical standpoint, there should be an upper limit of pain, suffering and distress, above which animals should never be subjected in scientific procedures. To that effect, the performance of procedures that result in severe pain, suffering or distress and which is likely to be prolonged, should be prohibitedrestricted as far as possible. When developing a common format for reporting purposes, instead of the predicted severity at the time of the ethical evaluation, the actual severity experienced by the animal should be taken into account.
Amendment 152 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Animal welfare considerations should be given the highest priority in the context of animal keeping, breeding and use. Each head of an establishment should therefore have an independent permanent ethical review body in placeidentify an ethical assessment body with the primary task of focuscarrying out an ethical debate at establishment level, fostering a climate of care and providing tools for practical application and timely implementation of the recent technical and scientific developments in relation toassessment of the establishment’s projects, in accordance with the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement to enhance the life-time experience of the animals. The decisopinions of the permanent ethical reviewse ethical assessment bodyies should be properly documented and open to scrutiny during inspections by the competent authority.
Amendment 154 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) It is also essential to ensure both on moral and scientific grounds that each use of animals is carefully evaluated on the scientific validity, usefulness and relevance of the expected result of that use. The likely harm to the animals should be balanced against the expected benefits of the project. Therefore, an independent ethical evaluation independent of those in charge of the study should be carried out as part of the authorisation process of projects involving the use of live animals. Effective implementation of an ethical evaluation should also allow for an appropriate assessment of the use of any new scientific experimental techniques as they emerge.
Amendment 155 #
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 availabcollected and compiled. The format of that information should not violate proprietary rights or expose confidential information. Therefore, user establishments should provide or information relating to the safety of persons and installations, or impair the safety of persons or installations. Therefore, user establishments should have the option of making available to the competent authorities anonymous non- technical summaries of those projects, including the results of any retrospective assessments, and make those summaries publicly available.
Amendment 158 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) There is a need to ensure a coherent approach to ethical evaluation and ethical review strategies at national level. Member States should establish national animal welfare and ethics committees to give advice toset out principles for the competent authorities and permanent ethical review bodies of establishments in order to promote the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement. Therefore, the network of national animal welfare and ethics committees should play a role in the exchange of best practice at Community level.
Amendment 160 #
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 164 #
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 as frof mammals, intended to come the last third of their normal developmento term, which have been scientifically shown to possess a nervous system capable of registering pain signals;
Amendment 168 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 170 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. This Directive shall apply to animals used in procedures, which are at an earlier stage of development than that referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2, if the animal is to be allowed to live beyo which are intended to come to term and that stage of development and is likely to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm after it has reached that stage of developmentve been scientifically shown to possess a nervous system capable of registering pain signals.
Amendment 173 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point 6 a (new)
Article 3 – point 6 a (new)
(6a) 'ethical approach' means the approach which precedes experimentation and consists of assessing the scientific and societal grounds for using animals, with reference to humankind's duty to respect animals as living, sentient beings;
Amendment 174 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 6 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 6 b (new)
(6b) 'ethical evaluation body' means a committee with the scientific, technical and civil competences required to deliver an enlightened ethical opinion on a project;
Amendment 189 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title
Article 6 – title
Amendment 192 #
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. The Commission shall develop guidelines that it shall update as progress is made.
Amendment 205 #
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 213 #
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 proceduNo later than 5 years from the entry into force of this directive, the Commission shall submit a technical feasibility study of the requirements set out in paragraph 2, detailing the consequences for animal welfares.
Amendment 217 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 220 #
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 scientific justification or reasons linked to animal welfare.
Amendment 249 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory phrase
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory phrase
1. Member States shall ensure that an animal already used in a procedure, when a different animal on which no procedure has previously been carried out could also be used, may be re-used in a new procedure totally different from the previous procedure from a scientific point of view only when all of the following conditions are met:
Amendment 253 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the previous procedure was classified as 'up to mildmoderate';
Amendment 258 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the further procedure is classified as 'up to mildmoderate' or 'non-recovery'.;
Amendment 265 #
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 269 #
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 272 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. All authorisations of persons shall be granted for a limited period of time, not exceeding five years. Member States shall ensure that the renewal of an authorisation of persons is only granted on the basis of demonstration of the requisite competence. Member States shall guarantee the mutual recognition of this competence and of the authorisation.
Amendment 275 #
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 286 #
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 standards set out in Annex IV as from the dates provided for in that Annexguidelines before 2017.
Amendment 288 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 3
Article 32 – paragraph 3
Amendment 292 #
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.
Amendment 298 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that projects are not carried out without a prior authorisation by the competent authority or, by delegation, by the permanent ethical review body that reviews protocols and procedures.
Amendment 300 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. Granting of authorisation shall be subject to favourable ethical evaluation by the competent authority or, by delegation, by the permanent ethical review body that reviews protocols and procedures.
Amendment 306 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) informthe declaration onthat the elements set out in Annex VIImatter has been referred to the competent authority responsible for ethics.
Amendment 309 #
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 335 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 4
Article 38 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, all projects involving only procedures classified as "up to mild"moderate" or less shall be exempted from the requirement for a retrospective assessment.
Amendment 341 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) a demonstration of compliance with the requirementthat the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement have been considered.
Amendment 343 #
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 349 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. Any amendment or rRenewal of a project authorisation shall be subject to a further favourable ethical evaluation.
Amendment 352 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 42 – paragraph 2a (new)
Article 42 – paragraph 2a (new)
Amendment 359 #
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 mild"moderate" or less and non-human primates are not used. In all other cases, no such presumption shall apply.
Amendment 374 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 47 – paragraph 1
Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall establish a national animal welfare and ethics committee that shall advise the competent authorities and permanent ethical review bodieresponsible for ethics in matters dealing with the acquisition, breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in procedures and ensure sharing of best practices.
Amendment 375 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 47 – paragraph 2
Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. The national animal welfare and ethics committees shall exchange information on the operation of permanent ethical reviewaluation bodies and ethical evaluation and share best practices within the Community.
Amendment 376 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. Member States shall collect and make publicly available, on an annual basiat intervals not exceeding three years, statistical information on the use of animals in procedures, including information on the actual severity of the procedures and on the origin and species of non-human primates used in procedures.
Amendment 377 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 384 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I
Annex I
Invertebrate Species referred to in Article • • Cephalopods •2(2) 2(2) Cyclostomes • Cephalopods Decapod crustaceans
Amendment 387 #
Amendment 388 #
Amendment 390 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex III – dates – lines 2 to 4
Annex III – dates – lines 2 to 4
[715 years after transposition of Directiveconfirmation of interest by the Commission] [715 years after transposition of Directiveconfirmation of interest by the Commission] [105 years after transposition of Directiveconfirmation of interest by the Commission]
Amendment 391 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex IV – title
Annex IV – title
Care and accommodation standardguidelines referred to in Article 32
Amendment 392 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex IV – subtitle (new)
Annex IV – subtitle (new)
The care and accommodation conditions should be tailored to the scientific objective.
Amendment 393 #
Amendment 71 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
Amendment 80 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The timber sector is of major importance for the economy of the Community. Organisations of operators are important elements of the sector as they represent the interests of the latter aton a large scale and interact with a diverse range of stakeholders. Organisations also have the expertise and capacity to analyse relevant legislation and facilitate the compliance of members, provided they do not use this competence with a viewin order to dominate on the market. In order to facilitate the implementation of this Regulation and to contribute to the development of good practices it is appropriate to recognise organisations which have developed requirements for the realisation of the due diligence systems. Such organisations may be organisations of economic operators, since they have the expertise and capacity to analyse relevant legislation and facilitate compliance by their members. A list of such recognised organisations will be made public and will enable theallow recognition of the monitoring organisations included therein by all Member States' competent authorities.
Amendment 98 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a
Article 2 – point a
(a) 'timber and timber products' means the timber and timber products set out in the Annex with the exception of timber and timber products which are subject to mandatory sustainability criteria established by Directive (EC) No XX/XX;
Amendment 102 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b
Article 2 – point b
(b) 'placing on the market' means any supply of timber and timber products for the first time on the Community market for distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity whether in return for payment or free of charge; subsequent processing and distribution of timber does not constitute 'placing on the market';
Amendment 111 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point f
Article 2 – point f
(f) 'applicable legislation' means the legislation of the country of harvest regulating forest conservaprotection and management and the harvesting of timber as well as legislation on trade in timber or timber products relateding to forest conservaprotection and management and to the harvesting of timber;
Amendment 115 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point h
Article 2 – point h
(h) 'monitoring organisation' means a legal entity or a membership-based association or a federation that has the legal capacity and expertise to monitor and ensure the application of due diligence systems by the operators certified as making use of such systems.
Amendment 128 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – subpoint iii
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – subpoint iii
Amendment 134 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. The commission shall adopt measures for the implementation of this Article. The Commission shall, in particular, establish criteriariteria the operator shall use for assessing whether there is a risk of illegally harvested timber and timber products being placed on the market are defined in Annex XX.
Amendment 135 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall adopt measures for the implementation of this Article. The Commission shall, in particular, establish criteria for assessing whether there is a risk of illegally harvestedcriteria used by the operator to assess the risk of timber andor a timber products being placed on the market. Those measures designed to amend non- essential elements of this Regulation by supplementing it shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 11(2) sourced from illegal logging being placed on the market are laid down in Annex XX.
Amendment 142 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The following established systems shall be deemed to fulfil the due diligence conditions in paragraph 1 and shall therefore not require any additional due diligence: (a) certificates issued by recognised forest certification systems; (b)FLEGT licences issued under the voluntary Partnership Agreements referred to in Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community1; (c) felling licences or equivalent systems issued by the competent national or regional authorities; (d) forest management plans validated by the competent national or regional authorities; (e) certificates issued in accordance with environmental management standards (ISO, EMAS and equivalents); (f) CITES licences; (g) verified or certified traceability systems. In the case of timber or timber products from high-risk areas as defined in paragraph 2, the systems identified in this paragraph are insufficient and full due diligence as defined in paragraph 1 must be carried out. 1 OJ L 347, 30.12.2005, p. 1.
Amendment 151 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) it has appropriate expertise;
Amendment 179 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Following the checks referred to in paragraph 1 the competent authorities may request the operator to take proportionate corrective measures.
Amendment 203 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 2
Annex I – point 2
2. Pulp and paper of Chapters 47, 48 and 489 of the Combined Nomenclature, with the exception of bamboo-based and recovered (waste and scrap) products;
Amendment 204 #
2008/0198(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 12 a (new)
Annex I – point 12 a (new)
12a. Other timber products included in CN categories 94 and 95, including wooden toys, sports accessories, etc.
Amendment 32 #
2008/0183(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 27 – paragraph 4 – point b – subparagraph 4 (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 4 – point b – subparagraph 4 (new)
b) at a price which is in no case greater than that justified by the costs incurred by the designated organisations in implementing the operation, other than the costs that may be covered under point (b) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 6. Those organisations shall display an information panel at distribution points, or attach a sticker to mobile distribution units, indicating that the association is a beneficiary of the European food aid programme. This shall be the way of informing beneficiaries that they are receiving Community support.
Amendment 36 #
2008/0183(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point b
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) costs of transport and storage of food products and administrative costs for the designated organisations directly linked with the implementation of the scheme.
Amendment 37 #
2008/0183(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 27 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. The Member State shall set a ceiling corresponding to the percentage of products purchased or bartered for all transport, storage and administrative costs (including communication costs), taking account of local conditions where necessary. The financial provision shall be divided by the Member States between these three items of expenditure. All appropriations not used under this provision may be reallocated to the purchase of food.
Amendment 16 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The School Fruit Scheme should be clearly identified as an EU initiative aimed at combating obesity in young people and developing their sense of taste. It should also serve, with the aid of appropriate educational programmes, to make children aware of the changing seasons in the course of a year. To that end, education authorities should, as a matter of priority, distribute seasonal fruit, giving preference to a varied range of fruits so as to enable children to discover different tastes.
Amendment 28 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) So as not to restrict the overall impact of similar national measures, Member States should also be permitted to grant additional national aid for the supply of products and related costs and accompanying measures and the Community School Fruit Scheme should be without prejudice to any separate national school fruit schemes which respect Community law. However, in order to ensure a practical effect for the Community Scheme, it should not replace current funding for existing multi-annual national School Fruit Schemes or other school distribution schemes that include fruit.
Amendment 41 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 − subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 − subpoint a
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section IVa – Subsection IIa – Article 103ga – paragraph 1
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section IVa – Subsection IIa – Article 103ga – paragraph 1
1. Under conditions to be determined by the Commission, from the 2009/10 school year, Community aid shall be granted for supplying to pupils in educational establishments certain EU-produced products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and bananas sectors to be determined by the Commission and may also be granted for certain related costs of logistics, distribution, equipment, communication, monitoring and evaluation.
Amendment 68 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 − subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 − subpoint a
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section IVa – Subsection IIa – Article 103ga – paragraph 3 – point d
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section IVa – Subsection IIa – Article 103ga – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) be used to replace current public funding for any existing national school fruit schemes or other school distribution schemes that include fruit.
Amendment 70 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 − subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 − subpoint a
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section IVa – Subsection IIa – Article 103ga – paragraph 5
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section IVa – Subsection IIa – Article 103ga – paragraph 5
5. The Community school fruit scheme shall be without prejudice to any separate national school fruit schemes which respect Community law. Pilot projects, conducted on an experimental basis in small numbers of educational establishments for limited periods of time, shall not be considered national schemes as referred to in paragraph 3(d).
Amendment 135 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 4 – point 21
Article 4 – point 21
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Part II – title I – chapter IV – section I – sub-section III – article 95 a – paragraph 1
Part II – title I – chapter IV – section I – sub-section III – article 95 a – paragraph 1
1. A premium of EUR 22,25 per tonne of starch produced shall be paid for the 2009/10 andto 2010/112/2013 marketing years to undertakings producing potato starch for the quantity of potato starch up to the quota limit referred to in Article 84a(2), provided that they have paid to potato producers a minimum price for all the potatoes necessary to produce starch up to that quota limit.
Amendment 140 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 4 – point 22
Article 4 – point 22
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 96
Article 96
Amendment 145 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 4 – point 29 a (new)
Article 4 – point 29 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 122 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 122 – paragraph 1 b (new)
29a. The following paragraph is added to Article 122: “Member States may also recognise as producer organisations applicant groups within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 1, of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs1. In this case the provisions of point (c)(i) of the first paragraph shall apply.” _________ 1 OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.
Amendment 146 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 4 – point 30
Article 4 – point 30
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 124 – paragraph 1
Article 124 – paragraph 1
“1. Article 122 and the first paragraph of Article 123 shall apply without prejudice to the recognition, decided by Member States on the basis of national law and in compliance with Community law, of producer organisations or interbranch organisations respectively, in any sector referred to in Article 1 except for the sectors referred to in Article 122 and the first paragraph of Article 123. These interbranch organisations may act to promote, inter alia, preventive risk management, research and development, information on, and promotion of, products and branches, market analysis and information, and measures of contractualisation.”
Amendment 149 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Furthermore, in order to avoid the abandonment of agricultural land and ensure that it is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 established a Community framework within which Member States adopt standards taking account of the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions and existing farming systems (land use, crop rotation, farming practices) and farm structures. The abolition of compulsory set aside within the single payment scheme may in certain cases have adverse effects for the environment, in particular as regards ordinary biodiversity and certain landscape features. It is therefore appropriate to reinforce the existing Community provisions aiming at protecting, where appropriate, biodiversity and specified landscape features.
Amendment 152 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Protection and management of water in the context of the agricultural activity has increasingly become a problem in certain areas. It is therefore appropriate to also reinforce the existing Community framework for good agricultural and environmental condition with the aim to protect water against pollution and run-off and to manage the use of water. Biodiversity is partially a result of agricultural practices. It should be viewed as an environmental concern of the CAP. The European Community’s commitment to stemming the loss of biodiversity by 2010 makes it necessary to implement the means of achieving that goal. It is therefore appropriate also to strengthen the existing Community framework as concerns good agricultural and environmental condition, in order to preserve biodiversity throughout Community territory.
Amendment 160 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The savings made through the modulation mechanism introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 are used to finance measures under the rural development policy. Since the adoption of that regulation the agricultural sector has been faced with a number of new and demanding challenges such as climate change, the increasing importance of bio- energy, as well as the need for a better water management and a more effective protection of biodiversity. The European Community, as party to the Kyoto Protocol, has been called to adapt its policies in the light of the climate change considerations. Furthermore, following serious problems related to water scarcity and droughts, water management issues should be further addressed. Protecting biodiversity remains a major challenge and while important progress has been made, the achievement of the European Community’s biodiversity target for 2010 will require additional efforts. The Community acknowledges the need to tackle these new challenges in the framework of its policies. In the area of agriculture, a minimum threshold of actions should be introduced throughout Community territory using the first pillar of the CAP, which the rural development programs adopted under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2006 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) are an appropriate tool to deal with themwill complement in the pursuit of better-targeted actions and efforts. To enable Member States to revise their rural development programmes accordingly without being required to reduce their current rural development activities in other areas, additional funding needs to be made available. However, the financial perspectives for the period 2007 to 2013 do not provide for the financial means to reinforce the Community’s rural development policy as necessary. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to mobilise a large part of the financial resources needed by providing for a gradual increase of the reduction of direct payments through modulation.
Amendment 183 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to help farmers to meet the standards of modern, high-quality agriculture, it is necessary that Member States operate a comprehensive system offering advice to commercial farms. The farm advisory system should help farmers to become more aware of material flows and on-farm processes relating to the environment, biodiversity, food safety, animal health and welfare without in any way affecting their obligation and responsibility to respect those standards.
Amendment 196 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Compulsory set aside of arable land was introduced as a supply control mechanism. Market developments in the arable crops sector together with the introduction of decoupled aids no longer justify the need for maintaining this instrument, which therefore should be abolished. SA proportion of the set-aside entitlements established in accordance with Articles 53 and 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 shall therefore be activated on hectares subject to the same eligibility conditions that any other entitlement. Loss of the environmental benefits of set-aside should be compensated by the introduction of new mechanisms, not least concerning biodiversity. The remainder of the set-aside entitlements should be made over to an obligation to preserve a biodiversity area, through the introduction of a biodiversity single payment entitlement.
Amendment 229 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The de-coupling of direct support and the introduction of the single payment scheme were essential elements in the process of reforming the common agricultural policy. However several reasons called in 2003 for maintaining specific support for a number of crops. Experience gained through the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 together with the evolution of the market situation indicates that schemes that were kept outside the single payment scheme in 2003 can now be integrated into that scheme to promote a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture. This is the case in particular for the olive oil sector, where only marginal coupling was applied. It is also the case for the durum wheat, protein crops, rice, potato starch, and nuts payments, where the decreasing effectiveness of remaining coupled payments, supports the decoupling option. In the case of flax it is also appropriate to abolish the support for processing and to integrate the relevant amounts into the single payment scheme. As regards rice, dried fodder,As regards potato starch and flax a transitional period should be provided for in order to ensure their shift to decoupled support to be as smooth as possible. As regards nuts, Member States should be allowed to continue to pay the national part of the aid in a coupled way in order to cushion the effects of decoupling.
Amendment 231 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The de-coupling of direct support and the introduction of the single payment scheme were essential elements in the process of reforming the common agricultural policy. However several reasons called in 2003 for maintaining specific support for a number of crops. Experience gained through the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 together with the evolution of the market situation indicates that schemes that were kept outside the single payment scheme in 2003 can now be integrated into that scheme to promote a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture. This is the case in particular for the olive oil sector, where only marginal coupling was applied. It is also the case for the durum wheat, protein crops, rice, and potato starch, and nuts payments, where the decreasing effectiveness of remaining coupled payments, supports the decoupling option. In the case of flax it is also appropriate to abolish the support for processing and to integrate the relevant amounts into the single payment scheme. As regards rice, dried fodder, potato starch and flax a transitional period should be provided for in order to ensure their shift to decoupled support to be as smooth as possible. As regards nuts, Member States should be allowed to continue to pay the national part of the aid in a coupled way in order to cushion the effects of decoupling.
Amendment 236 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) As a consequence of the integration of new schemes into the single payment scheme, provision should be made for the calculation of the new level of individual income support under that scheme. In the case of nuts, potato starch, flax and dried fodder, such increase should be granted on the basis of the support farmers received in most recent years. However, in the case of the integration of payments that were so far partially excluded from the single payment scheme, Member states should be given the option to use the original reference periods.
Amendment 264 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6 a Each Member State shall be free to introduce ‘bonus’ cross-compliance that awards farmers bonus points for actions fostering biodiversity and implemented in addition to the obligations arising from good agro-environmental cross-compliance. Each Member State shall define the actions for which those points can be awarded. The bonus points may be used to offset penalty points incurred in the area of the good agricultural and environmental condition described to in Article 6. The arrangements for that offsetting shall be laid down by the Member States.
Amendment 335 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The provisions set out in paragraph 1 shall only apply to payments fully integrated into the single payment scheme.
Amendment 459 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – letter (a a) (new)
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – letter (a a) (new)
(aa) any area of the holding considered to be an agro-ecological element fostering biodiversity. Each Member State shall decide on the procedures for establishing a list of those elements;
Amendment 460 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 38 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
In order to preserve biodiversity throughout the Community, each agricultural holding must contain a biodiversity area. That area shall be set proportionately to the utilised agricultural area of the holding at a rate fixed at a minimum threshold of 2 %, which each Member State shall be free to increase on a voluntary basis. The hectares making up that biodiversity area shall consist principally of the agro-ecological elements defined by each Member State. Those hectares shall qualify for biodiversity single payment entitlement.
Amendment 539 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States may decide by 1 August 2009 at the latest to use from 2010 up to 105% of their national ceilings referred to in Article 41 to grant support to farmers:
Amendment 565 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter b
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter b
b) to address specific disadvantages affecting farmers in the dairy, beef, sheep and goatmeat and rice sectors in economically vulnerable or environmentally sensitive areas, such as the dairy, beef, sheep and goatmeat and rice sectors,
Amendment 649 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 69 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. The financial contribution granted per farmer shall be set at a maximum of 60% of the insurance premium due. Member States may decide to increase the financial contribution to 70% taking account of the climatic situation or the situation of the sector concerned..
Amendment 657 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 6 - subparagraph 1
Article 69 – paragraph 6 - subparagraph 1
6. Member States' expenditure for the granting of financial contributions shall be co-financed by the Community from the funds referred to in Article 68(1) at a rate of 480% of the eligible amounts of insurance premiumfinancial contribution set in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.
Amendment 681 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71
Article 71
Amendment 687 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Title IV – Chapter 1 – Section 1 a (new)
Title IV – Chapter 1 – Section 1 a (new)
Amendment 740 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – line 5 – column 2
Annex I – line 5 – column 2
Title IV, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/20031, Section 1a (‘Aid for Nuts’), of this Regulation
Amendment 765 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – line 5 a (new)
Annex III – line 5 a (new)
Issue: Preserve biodiversity Standards: maintain a biodiversity area
Amendment 772 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – Part I – indent 4
Annex X – Part I – indent 4
Amendment 42 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In particular, increased use of biofuels for transport is one of the most effective tools by which the Community can reduce its dependence on imported oil – where the security of supply problem is most acute - and influence the fuel market forpromote sustainable modes of transport, particularly for freight, by developing intra-Community shipping lanes, river transport and rail transport.
Amendment 74 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1
Article 1
This Directive establishes a common framework for the promotion of energy from renewable sources. It sets mandatory targets for the overall share of energy from renewable sources in energy consumption and for the share of energy from renewable sources in transport. It lays down rules relating to guarantees of origin, administrative procedures and electricity grid connections in relation to energy from renewable sources. It establishes economic, environmental and social sustainability criteria for biofuels and other bioliquidall renewable energy sources.
Amendment 76 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 − point b
Article 2 − point b
(b) "biomass" means the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste, whether or not they are biodegradable;
Amendment 81 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 − paragraph 2
Article 3 − paragraph 2
2. With due regard for the conditions laid down in Articles 15 and 18, Member States shall introduce appropriate measures to ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources equals or exceeds that shown in the indicative trajectory set out in Part B of Annex I.
Amendment 110 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 − paragraph 3 − subparagraph 1 − point a
Article 15 − paragraph 3 − subparagraph 1 − point a
(a) forest undisturbed by significant human activity, that is to say, forest where there has been no known significant human intervention or where the last significant human intervention was sufficiently long ago to have allowed the natural species composition and processes to have become re-established, unless it can be shown that human intervention is, and will continue to be, of an intensity and frequency such as to ensure throughout the exploitation process the permanent conservation of natural species in terms of biodiversity, in the context of forest exploitation;
Amendment 112 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 − paragraph 3 − subparagraph 2
Article 15 − paragraph 3 − subparagraph 2
The Commission shall establishsubmit proposals to the European Parliament and the Council on the criteria and geographic ranges to determine which grassland shall be covered by point (c). Such a measure designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 21(3).
Amendment 117 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 − paragraph 4 − subparagraph 1 − point b
Article 15 − paragraph 4 − subparagraph 1 − point b
(b) continuously forested areas, that is to say land spanning more than 1 hectare with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 310%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ.
Amendment 123 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 − paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 − paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 a (new)
Biofuels and other bioliquids taken into account in the targets referred to in paragraph 1, and which are cultivated outside the Union, shall be obtained in accordance with similar rules. Where similar rules are not applicable, the agricultural raw materials used for the production of biofuels and other bioliquids taken into account for the purposes referred to in paragraph 1, produced outside the Union and having an impact on global natural resources, shall be obtained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) no significant increase in emissions liable to cause acidification, eutrophication or destruction of ozone, or which are toxic; (b) no significant deterioration in soil functions or soil fertility (e.g. preservation of levels of organic matter or measures to combat erosion); (c) no significant deterioration in water quality or water resources; (d) environmentally reasonable use of fertilisers and pesticides. The national authorities and/or economic operator shall provide the Commission with reliable information certifying that the environmental protection criteria in the country concerned meet these requirements.
Amendment 125 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 − paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 15 − paragraph 5 a (new)
Amendment 133 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 − paragraph 2
Article 17 − paragraph 2
By 31 March 2010 at the latest, Member States shall submit to the Commission a report including a list of those entitieareas of their territory classified as NUTS 2 level in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council where the typical greenhouse gas emissions (N2O) from cultivation of agricultural raw materials can be expected to bare lower than or equal to the emissions reported under the heading "cultivation" in part D of Annex VII to this Directive, accompanied by a description of the method and data used to establish that list. The method shall take into account soil characteristics, climate and expected raw material yields.
Amendment 134 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 − paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 − paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1 a (new)
By 31 March 2010 at the latest, the Commission shall submit a list of territories in third countries where the typical greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation of agricultural raw materials can be expected to be lower than or equal to the emissions reported under the heading ‘Cultivation’ in part D of Annex VII, accompanied if possible by a description of the method and data used to establish that list. Where appropriate, the Commission shall attach to its report relevant proposals concerning the values laid down in Annex VII.
Amendment 135 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 − paragraph 4
Article 17 − paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall report by 31 December 2012 at the latest, and thereafter every two years, on the estimated typical and default values in Annex VII Part B and Part E, paying special attention to emissions from transport and processing, and may, where necessary, decide to correct the values. Such a measure designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 21(3).
Amendment 143 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex VII − part C − paragraph 16 − subparagraph 2
Annex VII − part C − paragraph 16 − subparagraph 2
In the case of biofuels and other bioliquids, all co-products, including electricity that does not fall under the scope of paragraph 14, shall be taken into account for the purposes of this calculation, except for agricultural crop residues remaining in fields, including straw, bagasse, husks, cobs and nut shells. Co- products that have a negative energy content shall be considered to have an energy content of zero for the purpose of the calculation.
Amendment 144 #
2008/0016(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex VII, part C, paragraph 16, subparagraph 3
Annex VII, part C, paragraph 16, subparagraph 3
Wastes, agricultural crop residues, including straw, bagasse, husks, cobs and nut shells, and residues from processing chains, other than biofuel processing chains, with no potential food or feed, feed or energy use shall be considered to have zero life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions up to the process of collection of these materials.