Activities of Jan Philipp ALBRECHT related to 2010/2311(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU counter-terrorism policy: main achievements and future challenges (short presentation)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas there is an urgent need for a uniform legal definition of the concept of ‘profiling’ based on the relevant fundamental rights and data protection standards to reduce uncertainty as to which activities are prohibited and which are not,
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
G b. whereas terrorist activities in Europe are mostly of a regional nature and there are considerable differences in their origins and modalities; whereas EU policies to coordinate national counterterrorism activities need to be tailored as opposed to having a ‘one size fits all approach’;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores also the fact that the Communication does not sufficiently cover measures taken by DGs other than JLS (such as TRAN, ENTER or MARKT) and that it does not give a clear idea how the measures interact and where there is overlap or gaps; is of the opinion that all the above levels must also be considered, as European, national and international measures are complementary and assessing individual measures does not provide a complete picture of the impact of counter- terrorism policies in Europe;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ConsiderRecalls that counter-terrorism policies should meet the standards set with regard to civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic scrutiny and accountability that the Union has committed itself to uphold and develop, and that assessing whether these standards are met must be an integral part of an evaluation;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a proper evaluation of ten years of counter-terrorism policies must provide the basis for an evidence-based, needs-driven, coherent and comprehensive EU counter-terrorism strategy by means of an in-depth and complete appraisal to be carried out by a panel of independent experts reporting back to a Joint Parliamentary Meeting of the European Parliament and national parliamentary committees responsible for overseeing counterterrorism activities within six months after the study is commissioned, drawing upon reports to be requested from relevant organisations and agencies such as Europol, Eurojust, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Council of Europe and the United Nations;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a
Paragraph 5 – point a
a. provide a clear input and output analysis of counter-terrorism policies in Europe in the past decade and set out clearly the results of the policies in terms of increased security in Europeanalysis of the terrorist threat based on a clear and precise definition agreed at EU level and the framework put in place to address this threat;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b
Paragraph 5 – point b
b. set out the facts and figures relating to terrorist activity (successful, failed, prevented attacks) and counter-terrorism activity (arrests and convictions);stresses that such figures have to be verifiable and subject to cross-examination;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c
Paragraph 5 – point c
c. include a full overview of the accumulated impact of counter-terrorism measures on civil liberties, including Member State policies and measures by third countries with a direct impact in the EU quantified at least in terms of discrimination statistics and violations of civil liberties found in the relevant case law of the ECHR, ECJ and national courts;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point d
Paragraph 5 – point d
d. examine whether the current instruments for assessing the impact on privacy and civil liberties are adequate taking into account the interinstitutional agreements and further activities on better lawmaking;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point e
Paragraph 5 – point e
e. identify where further law enforcement powers are neededmeasures have been effective, proportionate and necessary or, inversely, where the powers granted awere excessive and go beyond what is necessary including proposals for repeal or reform and where further measures might be needed;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commissionpanel of experts to map out which measures have objectives other than counter-terrorism, or where further objectives were added to the initial purpose of counter-terrorism (mission creep and function creep), such as law enforcement, immigration policies, public health, or public order;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to assist the activities of the panel of experts by drawing up a complete and detailed ‘map’ of all counter- terrorism policies in Europe; calls at the same time on Member States to assist the activities of the panel of experts by carrying out a comprehensive evaluation of their counter- terrorism policies, with a particular focus on interaction with EU policies, overlap and gaps, to cooperate better in the evaluation of EU policies, and to provide their input within the given deadlines, as in the case of the Data Retention Directive8 ;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point b
Paragraph 11 – point b
b. all existing measures must be subjected to a retrospective proportionality test;9 ,9 giving priority to the Framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant where an explicit proportionality test needs to be introduced and the Framework decision on Terrorism, where in particular: - the operative part of the instrument (and not only the preamble) should include a full fundamental rights clause to guide its transposition and implementation; - in line with the best efforts to define terrorism on the international level, the definition of terrorism in Article 1 should restrict itself to the first two alternative intent elements, and the third one should be dropped (“seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization”), as it is to vague and therefore open to abuse by countries in other parts of the world that should be encouraged to follow best international standards; and - the list of crimes constituting the objective element of the same terrorism definition, should be shortened to comply with international standards based on the idea that the essence of terrorism is in deadly or otherwise serious physical violence against members of the general population (“civilians”) or segments of it.
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that the EU and its Member States must fully clarify their role in the CIA programme of renditions and black sites, in line with the recommendations of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe; insists that the Member States must fully collaborate with further investigations into the matter;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Calls upon the Commission to incorporate a uniform legal definition of the concept of ‘profiling’ in the upcoming revision of the Union’s data protection framework;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Calls on the Council to follow the example of the United Nations by appointing a coordinator on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;