66 Amendments of Birgit SIPPEL related to 2018/2044(INI)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading -1 (new)
Subheading -1 (new)
-1 Fundamental rights
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas counter-terrorism measures and the protection of freedoms are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
Recital -A a (new)
-A a. whereas the Union is founded on the values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as on the principles of democracy and the rule of law; whereas acts of terrorism constitute one of the most serious violations of these universal values and principles;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas of 88 legally binding counter-terrorism measures proposed from September 2001 to summer 2013 only a quarter were subject to impact assessments and only three to public consultation and in general the lack of public consultations and ex ante assessments were not compensated by ex post reviews or evaluations; whereas this ratio has improved in recent years and the most recent initiatives presented by the Commission in 2017 and 2018 were accompanied by the necessary justification; whereas with the Agenda on Better Regulation adopted in 2015 the Commission has also strengthened its policy on stakeholder consultation; whereas counter-terrorism measures have higher legitimacy and effectiveness when human rights organisations are involved in the policy-making phase;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas counter-terrorism legislation must never reduce or restrict the Union acquis on procedural rights;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AC a (new)
Recital AC a (new)
AC a. whereas preventing radicalism starts already by striving for a more inclusive, more tolerant society, providing opportunities for minorities to learn and participate in the labour market, empower them to participate in our cultural and political life; whereas strong anti- discrimination policies are needed to avoid alienating communities;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AI a (new)
Recital AI a (new)
AI a. whereas the removal of illegal content online must always be provided for by law, subject to initial judicial control and periodic review, set by transparent procedures and provide adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the restriction is limited to what is demonstrably necessary and proportionate and that users are informed of the reason for the restriction; whereas those safeguards shall also include the possibility of judicial redress;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AI a (new)
Recital AI a (new)
AI a. whereas illegal online content should be removed immediately on the basis of due legal process; whereas the role of ICT, ISPs and IHPs in ensuring the fast and efficient removal of illegal online content at the request of the responsible law enforcement authority, as well as, the irrespective reporting responsibilities should be highlighted;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AL
Recital AL
AL. whereas retention of data is an essential parin a democratic society the legality of any data retention scheme is not only determined by its necessity but also by its proportionality; whereas in its judgement ofn the investigative process; whereas police and judicial authorities usually rely heavily on communications data to successfully proceed with their casework; whereas in order for interoperability of information systems to reach its full potential, harmonised data retention regimes across the EU are vital; whereas the neannulment of Directive 2006/24/EC the CJEU stated that data retention legislation cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society if it does not require there to be any relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security, and in particular, is not restricted to retention in relation to (i) data pertaining to a particular time period and/or geographical area and/or a group of persons likely to be involved, in one way or another, in a serious crime, or (ii) persons who could, for other reasons, contribute, through their data being retained, to fighting crime; whereas in 2016, in joined cases C-203/15 and C- 698/15 of Tele2Sverige and Watson, the CJEU found that also national data retention schemes have to be assessed against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of12 July 2002 concerning the processityng of an appropriate data retention regime when it comes to the fight against terrorism was consistently raised during the work of the TERR Committeepersonal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for general and indiscriminate retention of and access to all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
Recital AM
AM. whereas the use of encryption by terrorists to protect their communications or stored data represents a considerableEuropean Parliament has repeatedly challenged for law enforcement, denying access to essential intelligence and evidence; whereasthe use of encryption becomes, particularly critical when even the responsible online service providers are unwilling or unable to decrypt the communicationin the case of data in transit, and not to undermine efforts to create encryption standards;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AN
Recital AN
AN. whereas there is a fragmented framework of existing systems, new systems in the process of development, proposals for future systems and proposals for reforms to address identified gaps and barriers still under negotiation; whereas this fragmented framework is the result of historical factors and a reactive approach in the proposal and adoption of new legislatione right balance needs to be struck between making the systems interoperable and the necessary fundamental rights safeguards once the necessity and proportionality of interoperability has been established;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AS
Recital AS
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AU a (new)
Recital AU a (new)
AU a. whereas these proposals impact the fundamental rights of hundreds of millions of third-country nationals, particularly their right to data protection;
Amendment 395 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BD a (new)
Recital BD a (new)
BD a. whereas the Fundamental Rights Agency should review the proportionality and necessity of all Counter Terrorism legislation;
Amendment 406 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BH
Recital BH
BH. whereas mutual legal assistance (MLA) mechanisms are progressively being replaced by mutual recognition instruments as the latter help improve cross-border cooperation between competent authorities within the EU by speeding up and streamlining the procedures; whereas the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Decision and the European Investigation Order (EIO) Directive areis an examples of mutual recognition instruments that haves been found by practitioners to be useful; whereas no evaluation of the effectiveness of new adopted and applied instruments tackling the issue of evidence gathering, including e-evidence, like the application of Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order, has been provided by the Commission;
Amendment 612 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital DH a (new)
Recital DH a (new)
DH a. whereas any CT measures always have to fully guarantee all fundamental rights and principles, including those with regards to privacy and data protection, freedom of thought and expression as well as procedural safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to information; whereas, in order to ensure the respect of these rights and principles, any CT measure always has to be subject to the control of a judicial authority, ensuring that individuals dispose of effective remedies to challenge any violation of their fundamental rights, including the possibility of judicial redress;
Amendment 617 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 19 a (new)
Subheading 19 a (new)
Fundamental rights
Amendment 618 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Calls for the Member States and the EU institutions, when adopting and applying CT measures, to find the right balance between fundamental rights and security needs; takes view, given that one of the EU’s core aims is to promote freedom of the individual, that security measures, including counterterrorism measures, must be pursued through the rule of law and must be subject to fundamental rights obligations, including those relating to privacy and data protection;
Amendment 621 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1 c Calls on all Member States to fully implement Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (police directive). Notes that a substantial number of Member States so far have failed to notify the Commission of any transposition measures regarding this directive although the deadline expired on 6 May 2018 and calls on the Commission to act against all those Member States in breach of their transposition obligation;
Amendment 624 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 f (new)
Paragraph -1 f (new)
-1 f. Calls on Member States to introduce independent oversight mechanisms into counter terrorism and counter radicalisation measures to assess their impact on fundamental rights including on non-discrimination;
Amendment 626 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 h (new)
Paragraph -1 h (new)
-1 h. Calls on the Member States to ensure that the necessary data protection safeguards are in place, in accordance with the GDPR, including appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data; urges the Member States to provide clear rules as to who can access which data in the systems, to maintain records of consultation and disclosure, and to provide for rights of access, rectification, erasure and restriction, as well as rights to compensation and judicial redress;
Amendment 647 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 648 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 666 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to work with the Member States towards more transparency and a common understanding of threat levels; calls on the Member States to swiftly transmit information on the change of the threat level and the rationale behind it; calls on the Commission and Member States not to restrict their view of terrorism as exclusively to jihadist issues, but to remain equally vigilant to other forms of terrorism mentioned in the Europol Te-Sat reports, as far-right, far- left, ethno-nationalist, separatist and single-issue terrorism;
Amendment 760 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Emphasises that the best way to prevent violent extremism in general is to strive for an inclusive society based on tolerance and equality; calls on Member States to effectively combat against discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes;
Amendment 761 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Recommends that security approaches be complemented by long- term policies to prevent radicalisation and recruitment of citizens of the Union by extremist organisations; calls for strategies on social inclusion, education, employment and housing and policies to tackle discrimination and exclusion in order to stop vulnerable individuals from joining violent extremist organisations as well as educating the general population about other cultures and traditions;
Amendment 776 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 24
Subheading 24
Radical Islaeligious extremism
Amendment 780 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Member States to encourage and toleraguarantee the freedom of religion and the right to exercise it freely, as enshrined in the Charter only ‘practices of Islam’f Fundamental Rights, and in this context particularly also to encourage religious practices that are in full accordance with EUdemocratic values; welcomes the initiatives by moderate Muslim religious communities throughout Europe to counter the dangerous narratives from within their communities;
Amendment 816 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 836 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Urges the Member States to close without delay mosques and places of worship and ban associations that doare not adhere to EU valuesin full compliance with applicable EU and national law and incite to terrorist offences, hatred, discrimination or violence;2a __________________ 2a The term "EU values" is not legally defined. However, in a state of law, any legal action, such as the closing down of a place of worship, can only be the result of a breach of an actual LAW (not of a cultural concept such as VALUES), e.g. on hate speech or on incitement to violence, in order to avoid arbitrary decisions.
Amendment 878 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Calls on Member States to invest adequate financial resources to integrate media and information literacy into national education systems and more generally in order to empower young citizens with the tools to use the internet responsibly and avoid possible risks of radicalisation;
Amendment 888 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Underlines the need to achieve automatic, fast and full removal of terrorist content; requests the Commission to present a legislative proposal obliging companies to remove terrorist content fully within one hour and to intro on the basis of duce clear reporting obligations on the incidence of terrorist content and removal rates, as well as sanctions for non- compliancegal process;
Amendment 900 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Underlines that the removal of illegal content online must always be provided for by law, subject to initial judicial control and periodic review, set by transparent procedures and provide adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the restriction is limited to what is demonstrably necessary and proportionate and that users are informed of the reason for the restriction. Those safeguards shall also include the possibility of judicial redress;
Amendment 927 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Encourages the European Commission and Member States authorities to strengthen their efforts to build effective counter-narratives and other strategic communications tools to disrupt the process of radicalisation towards extremist ideals;
Amendment 931 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 d (new)
Paragraph 28 d (new)
28 d. Recalls that removal decisions should be reviewed by human beings who are adequately trained and prepared to fulfil such a sensitive task;
Amendment 974 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Urges Member States to ensure that they have the necessary technical equipment (for example mobile devices allowing the police to check the biometrics of a person during on-the-spot checks), software, security systems and qualified staff to make full use of the exist, software, and security systems to make full use of the existing information systems and cooperation mechanisms; reiterates the importance of ensuring that staff with access to such equipment have received appropriate training, information systems and cooperation mechanism particular with regard to protecting fundamental rights;
Amendment 1006 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Regrets the current existence of 28 different legal regimes for data retention, which is counter-productive for cooperation and information exchange; urges the Commission to put forward a legislaat despite two landmark decisions by the CJEU1a declaring that the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication is not in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and that this also pertains to national data retention schemes, a number of Member States continue to have such data retention schemes in place; strongly underlines the need for all legislators to respect the CJEU rulings on data retention; __________________ 1a In its 2014 judgement in Digital Rights Ireland the CJEU declared invalid Directive 2006/24/EC (data retention directive)stating that data retention legislation cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society if it does not require there to be any relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security, and in particular, is not restricted to retention in relation to (i) data pertaining to a particular tivme proposal on data retention, in line with eriod and/or geographical area and/or a group of persons likely to be involved, in one way or another, in a serious crime, or (ii) persons who could, for other requirements stemming from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, while taking into account the needs of the competent authorities and the specificities of the CT field; asons, contribute, through their data being retained, to fighting crime. In 2016, in joined cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 of Tele2Sverige and Watson, the CJEU found that also national data retention schemes have to be assessed against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as Art. 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for general and indiscriminate retention of and access to all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication.
Amendment 1037 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
Amendment 1043 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Calls on the Member States to interconnect their PIUs in order to facilitate the exchange of PNR, data and calls on the Commission to propose technological solutions to make the exchange of PNR data less time-consuming and demanding in terms of human resources by automating the processing of requests from one PIU to another; encourages, therefore,takes note of projects such as the ISF project led by the Netherlands to develop PIU.net based upon the established FIU.net; asks the Commission, together with Europol, to support the development of joint targeting rules and risk assessments to be applied by 1a; __________________ 1a Article 9 of the EU PNR Directive already clearly stipulates that Member States shall ensure that, with regard to persons identified by a PIU, all relevant and necessary PNR data or the result of processing those data is transmitted by that PIU to the corresponding PIUs of the other Member States, in order to enable Europol to search national PNR data with central algorithms;. It is therefore not clear what the first sentence in the original paragraph is calling for. Regarding the last part of the original paragraph: the conditions for access to PNR data by Europol are clearly stipulated in Article 10 of the EU PNR Directive.
Amendment 1054 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
Amendment 1056 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
Amendment 1061 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
Amendment 1064 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Calls on Member States to strengthen the Prüm network by updating their national processing systems to adapt to modern information technology; urges the Commission to further develop a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model to link national systems more efficiently via a central routerNotes that the deadline for implementing the Prüm Decisions expired on 26 August 2011 and that still not all Member States have fully implemented the decisions. Therefore calls on those Member States to finally fulfil their obligations under EU law and fully implement the Prüm decisions; and strengthen the Prüm network by updating their national processing systems to adapt to modern information technology;
Amendment 1070 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Welcomes the proposed regulations on interoperability,; and calls for additional information systems, including decentralised European and national systems, to be included in the future; asks Member States to engage proactively in thissks Member States to engage proactively in this process; stresses that interoperability, as a concept, has yet to pass the test of proportionality and necessity, considering the EDPS in his opinion stated it is a ‘point of no return’ regarding how we handle Justice and Home Affairs databases; emphasises that such a solution can be accepted only where it procvess; is convinced that interoperability is vital for bringing all relevant and necessary information together, in particular identity data, while respecting access rights and purpose limita to strike the right balance between legitimate needs for timely, efficient and relevant information for authorities in full accordance of their access rights under the underlying legal bases and the fundamental rights of the data subjects, in particular their right to privacy and to data protection;
Amendment 1088 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
Amendment 1103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
Amendment 1131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Calls for Europol to become a veritable hub forstreamline and improve the information exchange and cooperation in the field of counter- terrorism in the EU, if necessary with a stronger mandatewithin the scope of applicable laws;
Amendment 1157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Calls on Member States to ensure cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with a view to increasing the decryption abilities of the competent authorities;Points out that state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of communications is an essential tool to safeguard the fundamental right to confidentiality of communications; therefore, does not believe that decryption technologies and thus undermining the fundamental right to confidentiality of communications are a proportionate means in a democratic society; reiterates its calls for the swift creation of a ‘Decryption Hub’ at Europol to develop decryption tools and expertise in order to better support Member Statesa plan allowing for the use of more cryptographic technologies, in particular end-to-end authenticated encryption for all IT and communications services such as cloud computing, email, instant messaging and telephony;
Amendment 1173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 a (new)
Paragraph 67 a (new)
67 a. Calls on the Fundamental Rights Agency to undertake analysis of all Counter Terrorism proposals at European level, with a particular emphasis on the proportionality and necessity of such measures;
Amendment 1177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Expects Member States to fully transpose and comply with Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order (EIO), and to further educate and train judicial staff on the European Investigation Order (application of the EIO) in order to ensure its comprehensive and full application; calls on the Commission to provide as soon as possible, before proposing any new instruments on mutual recognition of investigative measures, a full overview of the transposition of the EIO Directive, and to start infringement proceedings against those Member States that did not transpose it in due time;
Amendment 1185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
Amendment 1192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Calls for the swift adoptionTakes note of the Commission proposals for a regulation and directive aimed at improving cross-border access to electronic evidence; requests online service providers (OSPs) to provide single points of contact for law enforcement/judiciary request that would profoundly change the existing system of mutual recognition by introducing exterritorial application of laws, giving to private companies the task to evaluate public order/fundamental rights non-recognition grounds, and without notifying the Member State authorities on which territory e-evidence is being collected and regardless of its national legal/constitutional requirements to collect such evidence on its territory; recalls that no evaluation of the effectiveness of new existing instruments tackling the issue, like application of Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order, has been provided by the Commission before introducing new proposed instruments; calls on the competent LIBE committee to thoroughly check the proposals given the numerous questions and concerns with regard to fundamental rights, such as the rights to privacy and data protection and procedural rights, but also regarding the existence of such a new instrument in parallel to existing judicial cooperation instruments as well as the applicable EU data protection acquis;
Amendment 1234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79
Paragraph 79
Amendment 1255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
Amendment 1276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88
Paragraph 88
Amendment 1295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. Encourages Member States and third countries to effectively and fully implement the EU Anti Money- Laundering and Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Directives, transpose and enforce as soon as possible AMLD5, as well as implement the FATF recommendations, as well as the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the so-called ‘revised FATF Recommendations’), without delay;
Amendment 1331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Calls for the establishment of a European Union Terrorist Financing Tracking System (TFTS) for transactions by individuals with links to terrorism and its financing made within the Single Euro Payments Area, which would b; recalls that in its resolution of 21 October 2013, it called on the cComplementary to the Terrorist Financing Tracking Program (TFTP) in the USmission to suspend the TFTP agreement with the USA as a result of US National Security Agency surveillance (2013/2831(RSP));
Amendment 1372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110
Paragraph 110
Amendment 1408 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
Paragraph 122
122. Calls for the intensification of EU cooperation with neighbouring countries in the area of CT; considers that the EU must maintain a global approach to CT, with a specific focus on cooperation with key third countries on the basis of clearly defined priorities; respect for the protection and fulfilment of human rights, in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; reminds that international and regional human rights law makes clear that states have both a right and a duty to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security; at the same time stresses that the EU external action in the field of CT should be guided by the purposes set out in Article 55 of the Charter of the United Nations, including universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; insists, therefore, that as part of states’ duty to protect individuals within their jurisdiction, all measures taken to combat terrorism must themselves also comply with states’ obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law;
Amendment 1413 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122 a (new)
Paragraph 122 a (new)
122 a. Insists that the EU cooperation with third countries in the field of CT must be based on respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, including an absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, transfer of detainees in a manner which is transparent and consistent with human rights and the rule of law, non- discrimination, due process and the right to a fair trial;
Amendment 1455 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
Amendment 1495 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. Calls for the Member States and the EU institutions, when adopting and applying CT measures, to find the right balance between the different fundamental rights involved; considers in this respect that, while privacy is a fundamental right, the first priority should lie in protecting people’s fundamental rights to life and security; Takes the view, given that the EU’s core aim is to promote freedom of the individual, that security measures, including counterterrorism measures, must be pursued through the rule of law and must be subject to fundamental rights obligations, including those relating to privacy and data protection; calls for the Member States and the EU institutions, when adopting and applying CT measures, to keep in mind that the test of the necessity and proportionality of any measure that limits fundamental rights and freedoms needs to take into account the entire body of existing security measures targeting terrorism and serious crime; believes that blanket justification of every security measure by a general reference to the fight against terrorism or serious crime is not sufficient;
Amendment 1501 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 a (new)
Paragraph 136 a (new)
136 a. Reiterates that when adopting or applying CT measures, all fundamental rights and principles have to be fully guaranteed, including those with regards to privacy and data protection, freedom of thought and expression as well as procedural safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to information; recalls that, in order to ensure the respect of these rights and principles, any CT measure always has to be subject to the control of a judicial authority, ensuring that individuals dispose of effective remedies to challenge any violation of their fundamental rights, including the possibility of judicial redress;
Amendment 1519 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 139 a (new)
Paragraph 139 a (new)
139 a. Encourages the Commission to regularly submit reports to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the added value of the anti-terrorism legislation; asks that such reports shall also focus on fundamental rights and freedoms, including on non- discrimination, on the rule of law, and on the level of protection and assistance provided to victims of terrorism;