14 Amendments of Monica MACOVEI related to 2010/2154(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the importance of dissuasion and prevention in the fight against terrorism and supports in this only the use of legitimate means, which are necessary in a free and open democratic society; recalls that the confidence of citizens in their institutions is essential and that there must therefore be a fair balance between the need to ensure security and a guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that the use of body scanners must comply with Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for every body scanner to meet a minimum set of technical requirements before it can be placed on a permissible screening methods list; these requirements should inter alia ensure the prevention of any possible health risk, including long- term risks; calls in this regard for any form offull x-ray technology to be explicitly excluded from the permissible screening methods list, when it does not meet existing EU health standards; in this regard, particular attention should be given to vulnerable people;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that every personassenger should have the right to refuse a body scan, without the obligation to give any explanation, and the right to request a standard security check; in case of refusal, the person concerned should undergo a standard security check, that should guarantee the same level of security, with full respect for the rights and dignity of that person; calls in this regard for all security personnel to receive proper, and extensive training;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that refusal to undergo a body scan should not constitute ipso facto any suspicion of the person concerned and that, in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan, any form of profilingdiscrimination based on, for example, sex, race, colour, ethnicity, genetic features, language, religion or belief is unacceptableshould be prohibited;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for peopleassengers who are willing to be submitted to a body scan to be properly and comprehensibly informed about the body scanner, including their right to refuse to be submitted to a body scan and their right to complain and seek redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or their refusal to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security check; stresses that information to the traveller about the body scan should be provided not only at the time of the booking by the airline or on the airport website but also at the screening point;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for people who are willing to be submitted to a body scan to be properly and comprehensibly informed about the body scanner, including their right to refuse to be submitted to a body scan and their right to complain and seek redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or their refusal to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security check; recalls that the training of airport security personnel is a basic necessity;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines the importance of penalties for any instances of misuse of body scanner images;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter aliashowing what the real added value of this kind of initiative would be; insists in this regard on the importance of calculating the cost of investment, maintenance and management which would be incurred by installing and using body scanners; recalls that the impact assessment must also cover the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners and, the possible health risks – particularly for vulnerable persons – and the protection of personal data, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and data protection authorities, such as the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter alia the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners and the possible health risks, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and data protection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism; considers that such a proposal should also foresee a long term monitoring and evaluation on body scanners, taking into account the development of new technologies;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Considers that the decision to use body scanners in airports should not be mandatory for Member States; stresses that if a Member State chooses to deploy body scanners in its airports, those body scanners should meet the minimum standards and requirements set at EU level;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to raise the issue of the use of body scanners in the appropriate international bodies, as fight against terrorism is a global challenge and aviation security has to be pursued beyond European borders;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Underlines that those Member States which decide to use body scanners should be able, under the principle of subsidiarity, to apply more rigid standards than those defined in the European legislation on the protection of citizens and their personal data;