Activities of Carmen ROMERO LÓPEZ
Plenary speeches (41)
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
Migratory flows in the Mediterranean, with particular attention to the tragic events off Lampedusa (debate)
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) (debate)
Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and right to communicate upon arrest (debate)
US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and impact on EU citizens' privacy (debate)
One-minute speeches (Rule 150)
Application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast version) (A7-0216/2013 - Cecilia Wikström)
Laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) - Application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast version) - Establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints - Granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (debate)
Mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters (debate)
EU preparation for a possible influx of asylum seekers from Syria (debate)
Revision of the current data retention framework (debate)
Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (debate)
Breaches of Schengen rules (debate)
Situation in Syria (debate)
EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR to the US Department of Homeland Security (debate)
Trafficking in human beings (debate)
Detention conditions in the EU (debate)
Situation in Syria (debate)
European protection order (debate)
European protection order (debate)
Right to information in criminal proceedings (debate)
EU support to refugees in Tunisia (debate)
Situation in Syria (debate)
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) (debate)
Negotiations on the PNR agreements with the US, Australia and Canada (debate)
European Arrest Warrant (debate)
Migration flows and asylum and their impact on Schengen (debate)
Establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme (debate)
Situation in Egypt (debate)
State of European asylum system, after the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (debate)
Immediate EU measures in support of Italy and other Member States affected by exceptional migratory flows (debate)
Situation in the Mediterranean, in particular in Tunisia and Egypt (debate)
Cost of examining asylum seekers’ applications in Member States (debate)
European Protection Order (debate)
European Protection Order (debate)
European Protection Order (A7-0354/2010, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) (vote)
Explanations of vote
Rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (debate)
Rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (debate)
EU-Tunisia relations (debate)
Procedural rights in criminal proceedings (debate)
Reports (2)
RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European protection order PDF (149 KB) DOC (81 KB)
REPORT Report on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection Order PDF (363 KB) DOC (350 KB)
Shadow reports (3)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, with the exception of matters related to readmission PDF (171 KB) DOC (74 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest PDF (400 KB) DOC (431 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted (recast) PDF (339 KB) DOC (391 KB)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters
Amendments (384)
Amendment 12 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the ties between Europeprivacy is not a luxury right, but the fundament of a free and democratic society and whereas, given that the European Union's core aim is to promote freedom of the individual, security measures, including counterterrorism measures, must be pursued through the rule of law and must be subject to fundamental rights obligations, thereby making mass surveillance per se incompatible with the very nature of a democratic society and whereas the ties between the European Union and the United States of America are based on the spirit and these principles of democracy, rule of law, liberty, justice and solidarity;
Amendment 45 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the US authorities have denied some of the information revealed but not contested the vast majority of it; whereas the public debate has developed on a large scale in the US and in a limited number ofcertain EU Member States; whereas EU governments too often remain silent and fail to launch adequate investigations;
Amendment 47 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas in comparison to actions taken by both EU institutions and by certain EU Member States, the European Parliament has taken very seriously its obligation to shed light on the revelations on the indiscriminate practices of mass surveillance of EU citizens and, by its resolution of 4 July 2013 on the US National Security Agency surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens, instructed its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the matter;
Amendment 51 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. Whereas, according to an open memorandum submitted to President Obama by Former NSA Senior Executives/Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on 7th January 2014 27 a the massive collection of data does not enhance its ability to prevent future terrorist attacks; whereas, they stress that mass surveillance conducted by the NSA has resulted in the prevention of zero attacks and that billions have been spent in programs which are less effective and hugely more intrusive on citizens' privacy than an in- house technology called THINTHREAD that was built in 2001; __________________ 27a http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/ nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/
Amendment 57 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas fundamental rights, notably freedom of expression, of the press, of thought, of conscience, of religion and of association, private life, data protection, as well as the right to an effective remedy, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights, are cornerstones of democracy; and whereas mass surveillance of human beings is incompatible with these cornerstones;
Amendment 143 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers it dangerous to establish a serious crime prevention system not subject to judicial control and involving the use of data and metadata concerning any individual not justifiably under suspicion; notes that mass data collection for crime fighting purposes might lead to the creation of police states;
Amendment 174 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Commends the current discussions, inquiries and reviews concerning the subject of this inquiry in several parts of the world; points to the Global Government Surveillance Reform signed up to by the world’s leading technology companies, which calls for sweeping changes to national surveillance laws, including an international ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public’s trust in the internet; notes with great interest the recommendations published recently by the US President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies; strongly urges governments to take these calls and recommendations fully into account and to overhaul their national frameworks for the intelligence services in order to implement appropriate safeguards and oversight;
Amendment 180 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Attaches great importance to the work of the LIBE Committee members, who have for some time been expressing concern at the massive exchange of data and the non-participation of the European Parliament in the negotiation of agreements with the United States;
Amendment 184 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Calls on EU Member States to thoroughly examine the possibility of granting whistleblowers international protection from prosecution;
Amendment 187 #
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 bulk processing of personal data as well as to stop all on- going indiscriminate practices of mass surveillance;
Amendment 191 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on all EU Member States, and in particular those participating in the so- called "9-eyes" and "14-eyes" programmes, to comprehensively evaluate and revise their national legislation and practices governing the activities of intelligence services – including their (strategic) surveillance powers, authorisation procedures and oversight mechanisms - 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, presumption of innocence, the necessity and proportionality of surveillance activities, as well as parliamentary and judicial oversight, as also set out in the UN compilations of good practices 38e and the recommendations of the Venice Commission 38f; __________________ 38e UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Combating Terrorism 2010, Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies, UN General Assembly, A/HRC/14/46, 17 May 2010. 38f European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Report on Democratic Oversight of the Security Services in Council of Europe States, Study 388/2006, June 2007 (update due in spring 2014).
Amendment 193 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Calls on the UK to revise its 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 194 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Calls on Germany to revise the law on the German foreign intelligence service (BND) and the G-10 Law by making them more specific, reinforcing the rights of all persons whose communications are intercepted, providing for more public information in particular as to the activities of the G10 Commission, reinforcing the technical capabilities and investigative powers of the parliamentary oversight bodies, and adjusting the laws to the developments regarding internet technology and use;
Amendment 195 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Calls on France to reinforce the system of checks and balances in the field of intelligence activities so as to ensure it is in line with the European Convention on Human Right's requirements, to strengthen its general oversights mechanisms, both as regards the ex ante authorisation procedures, the involvement of the Parliament in monitoring of intelligence activities and the reinforcement of technical capabilities and investigate powers of the latter. Moreover encourages the National Commission for the Control of Security Interceptions (CNIS), independent administrative authority to monitor more closely and effectively the processing of data collected by the various intelligence agencies. Urges France to clarify the situation on allegations regarding potential agreements between intelligence services and telecommunication companies as regard access to and exchange of personal data and access to communication facilities including Transatlantic cables. Takes notes of the adoption of the "Loi de programmation militaire 2014-2019" in December 2013 clarifying the framework according to which intelligence services may have access to communication data, with regards to fighting against terrorism;
Amendment 196 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)
Paragraph 19 d (new)
19d. Calls on Sweden to revise the internet laws which authorised the National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) to monitor communications traffic into and out of Sweden, cable bound as well as in the ether (radio and satellite), including emails, text messages and telephone calls and Act on signals intelligence which allows for the bulk transfer of data to other states if authorised by the Government, in order to specify the means and the scope of the surveillance and to improve the foreseeability of law which would enable an individual to foresee whether their communication or data about their communication is collected by FRA; recommends further to reinforce the system of checks and balances in oversight of the signals intelligence by including at the composition of the Inspection for Defence Intelligence Operations the parliamentarians in office;
Amendment 197 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 e (new)
Paragraph 19 e (new)
19e. Takes note of the review of the Dutch Intelligence and Security Act 2002 (report by the "Dessens Commission" of 2 December 2013); supports those recommendations of the review commission which aim to strengthen the transparency of and the control and oversight on the Dutch intelligence services; calls on the Netherlands to refrain from extending the powers of the intelligence services so that untargeted and large-scale surveillance could also be performed on cable-bound communications of innocent citizens, especially given the fact that one of the biggest Internet Exchange Points in the world is located in Amsterdam (AMS-IX); calls for caution in defining the mandate and capabilities of the new Joint Sigint Cyber Unit, as well as for the presence and operation by US intelligence personnel on Dutch territory;
Amendment 198 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 f (new)
Paragraph 19 f (new)
19f. Calls on Poland to revise data protection legislation in particular as far as their access by different (law enforcement or intelligence) authorities to citizens' personal data from various sources is concerned) and introduce an independent supervisory mechanism over their activity, notably in the area of intelligence and general crime prevention; strongly recommends that Poland properly applies freedom of information laws with respect to national security issues ; recommends further that any freedom of information requests shall be duly and adequately treated, notably when relevant for explaining government involvement in programs of mass surveillance and for thereby holding decision-makers accountable;
Amendment 242 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the Commission to conduct before the end 2014 an in-depth assessment of the existing Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, pursuant to its Article 17, in order to verify its practical implementation and, in particular, whether the US has made effective use of it for obtaining information or evidence in the EU and whether the Agreement has been circumvented to acquire the information directly in the EU, and to assess the impact on the fundamental rights of individuals; such an assessment should not only refer to US official statements as a sufficient basis for the analysis but be based on specific EU evaluations; this in-depth review should also address the consequences of the application of the Union’s constitutional architecture to this instrument in order to bring it into line with Union law, taking account in particular of Protocol 36 and Article 10 thereof and Declaration 50 concerning this protocol; calls on the Council and Commission also to assess bilateral agreements between Member States and the United States so as to ensure that they are consistent with the agreements that the EU follows or decides to follow with the United States;
Amendment 244 #
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 cooperation; notes that it also fails to clarify whether these agencies have had access to PNR;
Amendment 256 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Calls on the European Commission to react to concerns that three of the major computerised reservation systems used by airlines worldwide are based in the US and that PNR data are saved in cloud systems operating on US soil under US law, which lacks data protection adequacy; calls on it to suspend the PNR agreement also until the situation which prompted this Committee of Inquiry has been remedied;
Amendment 257 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Calls on the European Commission to react to concerns that three of the major computerised reservation systems used by airlines worldwide are based in the US and that PNR data are saved in cloud systems operating on US soil under US law, which lacks data protection adequacy; states that this, in addition to other points, undermines the legitimacy of the EU US PNR agreement and therefore calls on the European Commission to immediately start a consultation procedure with their US counterparts under Article 24 of the agreement with a view to clarify whether or not PNR data have been compromised; Calls on the European Commission to make full use of their powers under Article 24 to suspend the application of the Agreement if no satisfactory answers can be obtained or PNR data have indeed been compromised;
Amendment 276 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Notes that trust in US cloud computing and cloud providers has been negatively affected by the abovementioned practices; emphasises, therefore, the development of European clouds as an essential element for growth and employment and trust in cloud computing services and providers and for ensuring a high level of personal data protection, as they entail a serious violation of the fundamental right of EU citizens and residents to privacy and data protection, as well as of the right to private and family life, the confidentiality of communications, the presumption of innocence, freedom of expression, freedom of information, and the freedom to conduct business; emphasises, therefore, the development of European clouds as an essential element for growth and employment and trust in cloud computing services and providers and for ensuring a high level of personal data protection; takes the view, therefore, that public authorities, as well as non- governmental services and the private sector, should, as far as possible, rely on EU cloud providers when processing sensitive data and information until satisfactory global rules on data protection have been introduced, ensuring the security of sensitive data, and of data bases, held by public entities;
Amendment 278 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Stresses the need to address the challenges raised by cloud computing at an international level, in particular as regards government intelligence surveillance and necessary safeguards; stresses in particular that EU citizens subject to intelligence surveillance by third country authorities should benefit from at least the same safeguards and remedies as are available to citizens of the third country concerned;
Amendment 281 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 a (new)
Paragraph 56 a (new)
56a. Urges the Commission, when negotiating international agreements that involve the processing of personal data, to take particular note of the risks and challenges that cloud computing poses to fundamental rights, in particular – but not exclusively – the right to private life and to the protection of personal data, as laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; urges, furthermore, the Commission to take note of the negotiating partner's domestic rules governing the access of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to personal data processed through cloud computing service, in particular by demanding that such access for law enforcement and intelligence authorities only be granted with full respect for the due process of law and on an unambiguous legal basis, as well as the requirement that the exact conditions of access, the purpose of gaining such access, the security measures put in place when handing over data and the rights of the individual, as well as the rules for supervision and for an effective redress mechanism, be specified;
Amendment 283 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 b (new)
Paragraph 56 b (new)
56b. Underlines that particular assistance must be given to small and medium-sized enterprises which increasingly rely on 'cloud computing' technology when processing personal data, and which may not always have the resources or the expertise to address security challenges adequately;
Amendment 284 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Recalls that all companies providing services in the EU must, without exception, comply with EU law and are liable for any breaches and underlines the importance of having effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative sanctions that may be imposed on 'cloud computing' service providers that do not comply with EU data protection standards;
Amendment 290 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Recognises that the EU and the US are pursuing negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which iscould be of major strategic importance for creating further economic growth and for the ability of both the EU and the US to set future global regulatory standards;
Amendment 307 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 a (new)
Paragraph 61 a (new)
61a. Considers that the European Parliament must have full powers to conduct parliamentary inquiries and is of the opinion that the powers conferred to it by its current Rules of Procedure cannot be compared to such a proper oversight mechanism which would include at least the right to summon witnesses and hear them under oath;
Amendment 340 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73 a (new)
Paragraph 73 a (new)
73a. Calls on the Council and Commission to empower Eurojust to monitor the implementation of international data exchange agreements for the purposes of crime prevention.
Amendment 442 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100
Paragraph 100
100. Recognises, in light of the global challenges facing the EU and the US, that the transatlantic partnership needs to be further strengthened, and that it is vital that transatlantic cooperation in counter- terrorism continues; insists, however, on a new basis of trust based on true common respect of the rule of law and the rejection of all indiscriminate practices of mass surveillance; insists therefore that clear measures need to be taken by the US to re- establish trust and re-emphasise the shared basic values underlying the partnership;
Amendment 443 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 101
Paragraph 101
101. Is ready actively to engage in a dialogue with US counterparts so that, in the ongoing American public and congressional debate on reforming surveillance and reviewing intelligence oversight, the privacy rights of EU citizens are addressed, equal information rights and privacy protection in US courts guaranteed and the current discrimination not perpetuated; Calls on the US to revise its legislation in this field without delay in order to bring it into line with international law and to recognise the privacy and other rights of EU citizens. The call for legislative correction should include reform of its Electronic Communications Privacy Act as regards warrantless access to content, changes in federal law to provide for judicial redress for EU citizens and to sign the Additional Protocol allowing for complaints by individuals under the ICCPR;
Amendment 467 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109 a (new)
Paragraph 109 a (new)
109a. Believes that the expansion of a surveillance society within the EU as a direct result of EU legislation has to be prevented under all circumstances; Therefore calls on the Council and the European Parliament when acting as legislators in the field of justice and home affairs to ensure that practices that are designed to collect en masse data from EU citizens with a view to combatting terrorism and serious crime are fully in line with the requirements of the rule of law and the EU's human rights obligations; Points out that this for example applies to Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data which seems to be incompatible with Articles 7 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as on the Commission proposal 2011/0023 (COD) on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime;
Amendment 496 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 4 a (new)
Paragraph 114 – point 4 a (new)
Action 4a: Suspend the PNR agreement until (i) the Umbrella Agreement negotiations have been concluded; (ii) a thorough investigation has been carried out on the basis of an EU analysis and the entire situation prompting the Committee of Inquiry has been resolved;
Amendment 4 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 10 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)),
Amendment 14 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the European Union has set itself the task of developing an area of freedom, security and justice, and whereas, pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, it respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, thereby taking on positive obligations which it must meet in order to honour that commitment and whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition and has been very successful in speeding up surrender compared to traditional extradition procedures among Member States;
Amendment 31 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii
Recital C – point iii
(iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Interpol and Europol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts; which can have severe human impacts as persons subject to refused EAWs are not able to move freely in the European Union since they must fear arrest and surrender;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii a (new)
Recital C – point iii a (new)
(iiia) The lack of precision in the definition of serious crimes list related to the European Arrest Warrant but also to other EU instruments which make constant reference to that list, and the inclusion of crimes which seriousness is not envisaged in all EU criminal code and which may not overcome the proportionality test.
Amendment 35 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii b (new)
Recital C – point iii b (new)
(iiib) The lack of definition of organised crime at EU level, which should include, inter alia, the offence of participation in a transnational criminal organisation, emphasising the fact that criminal groups of this kind are business oriented, highly organised, technologically sophisticated, and often act through intimidation and blackmail.
Amendment 39 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iv
Recital C – point iv
(iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, often unjustified and excessive time spent in pre-trial detention andwhich results in a disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants as well as with those of their families and places burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 45 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point vii
Recital C – point vii
(vii) the absence of Union provisionminimum standards to ensure effective judicial oversight of the execution of mutual recognition measures and inconsistent rules on compensation for miscarriages of justice, which leads to greatly divergent Member State practices and frequently to the lack of protections against fundamental right violations as a result of mutual recognition measures as well as the lack of compensation for victims of miscarriages such as mistaken identity, contrary to standards laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in the well- established case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ);
Amendment 49 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point viii
Recital C – point viii
(viii) the extensive periods that some individuals are spending in pre-trial detention, which should be aoften resulting from the use of an EAW before the issuing state is ready to try a case coupled with a lack of minimum standards relating to the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the insufficient use of alternatives to detention as well as the lack of regular review of detention, therefore unjustifiably inferring with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty and which should therefore only ever be a measure of last resort;
Amendment 54 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point ix
Recital C – point ix
(ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this hdetrimental effect that this has on the fundamental rights of the affected individuals as well as on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 73 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point a
Paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a mandatory refusal ground based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights applicable to mutual recognition instruments;where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of an EAW would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (This amendment reflects the wording in the agreed text on the European Investigation Order (para 10 g)).)
Amendment 79 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) a better definition of the crimes where the European Arrest warrant should apply in order to facilitate the proportionality test
Amendment 89 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point e
Paragraph 3 – point e
(e) consistent legal remedies, which should include the automatic right to appeal in the executing state against a mutual recognition decision prior to the mutual recognition decision being put into action as well as the right to challenge failure by the issuing state to comply with assurances provided to the executing state prior to surrender, in order to secure the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 91 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines the need for more data on the operating of the EAW and therefore calls on the Commission to collect the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism within each Member State: (a) in the case of an accusation warrant, the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial as well as the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to such a warrant; (c) the number of cases where pre-trial detention was ordered and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long;
Amendment 98 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Calls on Member States to timely and effectively implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures such as inter alia the already agreed directives on procedural rights and to actively push for further binding legal instruments in this area as judicial cooperation in criminal matters needs to be based on respect for standards in the area of fundamental rights and the necessary approximation of the rights of suspects and accused persons and of procedural rights in criminal proceedings and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 105 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for Member StatesWithout prejudice to the legal remedies referred to in this report, calls for Member States, as either an issuing or executing state, to compensate damage arising from miscarriages of justice relating to mutual recognition instruments, in accordance with the standards laid down in the ECHR and in the well-established case-law of the ECJ;
Amendment 114 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new)
(1) Highlights the link between detention conditions and EAW measures and reminds Member States that Article 3 of the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR impose on the Member States not only negative obligations, by banning them from subjecting prisoners to inhuman and degrading treatment, but also positive obligations, by requiring them to ensure that prison conditions are consistent with human dignity, and that thorough, effective investigations are carried out if such rights are violated; Calls Member States to take particular account of the rights of vulnerable persons and in general thoroughly examine alternatives to detention.
Amendment 115 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal setting out a common definition of organised crime, which should include, inter alia, the offence of participation in a transnational criminal organisation, emphasising the fact that criminal groups of this kind are business oriented, highly organised, technologically sophisticated, and often act through intimidation and blackmail.
Amendment 116 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls on the Commission to prepare a study on comparative EU criminal codes across the EU in order to help Member States when conducting the proportionality test
Amendment 122 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions in Member States since shortcomings, such as prison overcrowding and allegations of poor treatment of detainees, may undermine the trust which must underpin judicial cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions by Member States.
Amendment 123 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new)
(1) Reminds the Commission of its previous call for EU wide legislative action on minimum standards in the field of pre-trial detention (European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)) and notes with great disappointment that such a proposal was not among the legislative measures on procedural rights proposed by the Commission on 27 November 2013. Reiterates therefore its call on the Commission to submit legislative proposals establishing minimum standards regarding the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the use of alternatives to detention, the regular review of pre-trial detention such as to prevent excessive periods of detention, and detention conditions in Member States.
Amendment 99 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Notes that the Directive and the Regulation on the European Protection Order are a step forward in the combating of gender-based violence, but also points out that no comparative statistics exist to illustrate the situations faced by victims of gender-based violence or of trafficking in human beings in the Member States;
Amendment 118 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Points out also that the progress made in the field of criminal law has centred on procedural aspects, and calls for a sounder framework to be considered for setting down in EU law what constitutes a serious crime and what a minor crime, as this will be used in criminal proceedings and in combating terrorism;
Amendment 120 #
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 free legal aid and vulnerable suspects are outstanding and that the level of ambition of the Council seems to be decreasing more and more;
Amendment 132 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Believes that the Green Paper on Detention Conditions has not given rise to any initiative on the part of the Commission;
Amendment 151 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Believes that the role of Eurojust should be reinforced in all areas relating to improved judicial coordination and circulation of information among the Member States;
Amendment 225 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Calls on the Commission to provide information on the situation at detention centres and respect for human rights there, and to bring forward initiatives regarding their operation in the future;
Amendment 11 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinion that Eastern and Southern neighbours and particularly the developments in the Southern Mediterranean remain a priority, and that the Draft Budget represents an adequate basis for the Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, based on the more for more principle and to guarantee an efficient and ambitious role of the EU; considers important the support and guarantee by the EU to the projects funded through microcredit programs carried out by the EIB or the EBRD due to the positive impact that these projects have on sustainable and local development in these countries.
Amendment 411 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Consent should be given explicitly by any appropriate method 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. 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. The subject should also have the right to withdraw their consent at any time and with the same facility as it was granted.
Amendment 493 #
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 'right to be forgotten' 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 reasons of public interest in the area of public health, 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. Nevertheless, in these cases, and insofar as the subject’s fundamental freedoms, rights and interests should prevail, he/she should be able to exercise the right to oppose the creation of links, copies or reproductions of such data where they are not necessary for these purposes.
Amendment 503 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) To strengthen the 'right to be forgotten' in the online environment, the right to erasure should also be extended in such a way that a controller who has made the personal data public should be obliged to inform third parties which are processing such data that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copies or replications of that personal data. To ensure this information, the controller should take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible. In cases where the measures taken by the controller have been ineffective or where the latter has disappeared, ceased to exist or cannot be contacted by the data subject, the latter should be entitled to oblige the third party to erase any link to the data, or copies or reproductions thereof. In relation to a third party publication of personal data, the controller should be considered responsible for the publication, where the controller has authorised the publication by the third party.
Amendment 598 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 97 a (new)
Recital 97 a (new)
(97a) In the event of complaints or objections from the data subject, the latter should in all cases be able to have recourse to the supervisory authority in their Member State, which should be able, if the scale of the incident so warrants, to propose a coordinated response involving several supervisory bodies and headed by the lead authority, which should take a decision which should be implemented by all the supervisory bodies involved. Any discrepancies arising amongst the supervisory bodies concerned should be resolved by the European Data Protection Board.
Amendment 752 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6a) ‘data protection by design’ means data protection embedded within the entire life cycle of the technology, from the very early design stage, right through to its ultimate deployment, use and final disposal;
Amendment 753 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 b (new)
(6b) ‘data protection by default’ means configuration of the privacy settings on services and products so that these comply with the general principles of data protection, such as transparency, data minimisation, purpose limitation, integrity, storage minimisation, intervention possibility and accountability.
Amendment 946 #
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 withdifferent from 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 979 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. The option of withdrawing consent shall be made as easily accessible and shall involve the same level of practical difficulty attached to the granting of consent.
Amendment 1419 #
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 publicationwho made the personal data public has taken steps measures that have had no effect has disappeared, has ceased to exist or cannot be contacted by the data subject, the latter shall have the right to obtain third parties the erasure of any links to, or copy or replication of the personal data.
Amendment 1452 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
When data are retained under the provisions of points (a), (b), (c) and (d), and the controller has made them public, the data subject may, for reasons related to overriding interests, rights or freedoms, exercise the right to object to links to, or the copying or replication of, such data, unless such processing forms an essential part of the rights, interests, obligations or purposes to which these points relate.
Amendment 1764 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) an enterprise employing fewer than 250 persons; orprocessing carried out by an enterprise employing 250 persons or more, or of one of the special categories of data listed in Article 9(1), or of personal data which could, if processed, threaten the reputation, income or employment of the data subject; o
Amendment 1786 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) enlist another processor only with the prior permission of the controller, with the other processor subcontracted to provide personal data processing services being bound by the same contractual obligations or binding legal terms relating to personal data protection as the original processor;
Amendment 2171 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the processing is carried out by an enterprise employing 250 persons or more; or concerns any of the special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1), or personal data whose processing would pose an economic or labour-related risk to, or harm the reputation of, the interested party;o
Amendment 2386 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Any transfer of personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer to a third country or to an international organisation may only take place if, subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, the conditions laid down in this Chapter are complied with by the controller and processor, including for onward transfers of personal data from the third country or an international organisation to another third country or to another international organisation. Transfers to third countries in which the law specifically allows data to be processed in ways which are illegal under the terms of this regulation or are otherwise incompatible with EU fundamental rights, such as processing carried out for national or foreign policy purposes which is not necessary to maintain national security or uphold the law, shall be prohibited.
Amendment 2584 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 2
2. Where the processing of personal data takes place in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, and the controller or processor is established in more than one Member State, the supervisory authority of the main establishment of the controller or processor shall be competent for the supervision of the processing activities of the controller or the processor in all Member States, except with regard to decisions in response to the complaints referred to in Article 73, in which case it shall coordinate the actions of the supervisory authorities concerned, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII of this Regulation.
Amendment 2604 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) conduct investigations either on its own initiative or on the basis of a complaint, on receipt of information about illegal processing of personal data, or on request of another supervisory authority, and inform the data subject concerned, if the data subject has addressed a complaint to this supervisory authority, of the outcome of the investigations within a reasonable period;
Amendment 2642 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 a (new)
Article 54 a (new)
Amendment 2672 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Article 58 – paragraph 3
3. Any supervisory authority or the European Data Protection Board may request that any matter shall be dealt with in the consistency mechanism, in particular where a supervisory authority does not submit a draft measure referred to in paragraph 2 or does not comply with the obligations for mutual assistance in accordance with Article 55 or for joint operations in accordance with Article 56. , or where a supervisory authority concerned opposes a draft measure proposed by another supervisory authority concerned or by the lead authority, as per the provisions of Article 54(a).
Amendment 2748 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(ga) set out common procedures for the receipt and investigation of information pertaining to complaints concerning the unlawful processing of personal data with a view to protecting whistleblowers from reprisals, and to safeguarding the confidentiality of the sources of such information in cases where whistleblowers may be affected by third countries’ laws prohibiting the uncovering of such unlawful processing of personal data.
Amendment 2759 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 68 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In votes on the European Data Protection Board, each representative of the supervisory authority of their Member State shall have as many votes as its Member State has in the Council of the European Union.
Amendment 2762 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 1
Article 69 – paragraph 1
1. The European Data Protection Board shall elect a chair and two deputy chairpersons from amongst its members. One deputy chairperson shall be the European Data Protection Supervisor, unless he or she has been elected chair.
Amendment 2766 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1
Article 71 – paragraph 1
1. The European Data Protection Board shall have a secretariat. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall provide that secretariat. Secretariat of the Council shall provide that secretariat, and allocate the human and financial resources necessary to ensure it can exercise its duties effectively and independently under the management of its Chair.
Amendment 2770 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 71 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission shall propose, within two years from the entry into force of this Regulation, a draft regulation for the establishment of an independent agency which shall run that secretariat, which shall have sufficient human and financial resources to ensure it can exercise its duties effectively and independently under the management of its Chair.
Amendment 2775 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 1
Article 73 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in anytheir Member State of residence if they consider that the processing of personal data relating to them does not comply with this Regulation.
Amendment 2783 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 2
Article 73 – paragraph 2
2. Any body, organisation or association which aims to protect data subjects’ rights and interests concerning the protection of their personal data and has been properly constituted according to the law of a Member State shall have the right to lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority in anythat Member State on behalf of one or more data subjects residing in that Member State if it considers that a data subject’s rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of personal data.
Amendment 2792 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 3
Article 73 – paragraph 3
3. Independently of a data subject's complaint, any body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 2 shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in any Member Stin the Member State in which are located, if it considers that a personal data breach affecting data subjects residing in that Member State has occurred.
Amendment 2803 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 74 – paragraph 4
Article 74 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2976 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 81 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such asincluding protecting against serious cross-border threats to health or ensuring high standards of quality and safety, inter alia for medicinal products or medical devices; or
Amendment 285 #
2012/0010(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)
(15a) ‘data protection by design’ means integrating data protection into the entire life cycle of the technology, from the initial design stage, right through to its deployment, use and ultimate withdrawal from the market;
Amendment 286 #
2012/0010(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 b (new)
(15b) ‘data protection by default’ means setting the privacy options in relation to services and products in such a way as to comply with the general principles of data protection, such as transparency, data minimisation, purpose limitation, integrity of data, minimisation of data storage periods, scope for action by data subjects and accountability;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the concept of a macro- regional strategy, which, on the basis of the experience gained in existing macro- regions (Baltic Sea and Danube regions), can encourage Member States, regions, local authorities and third countries to manage resources in such a way as to foster growth, prosperity, security and sustainable protection of thedevelop territorial cooperation projects, particularly concerning economic and environmental issues, in areas sharing common geographic, historic and cultural characteristics;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service to lend specific support to the idea of an Ionian- Adriatic macro-region, taking due account of neighbourhood policies;Emphasises, in the light of the many economic, social and environmental challenges faced by all Mediterranean regions, the importance of creating a macro-region for the Mediterranean as a whole, so as to promote closer cooperation within athis specific area which includes EU Member States and neighbouring countries which have the Mediterranean Sea as the major, but not sole, element of their common heritage; and to seek synergies with r, taking due account of neighbourhood policies; believant institutions, suches that this macro-region should, ast the European Investment Bank and the Union for the Mediterraneansame time, facilitate cooperation on a sub-regional level for specific projects;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that a Mediterranean macro-region could give the Union for the Mediterranean’s specific projects real added value, so that they complement each other, particularly in the form of financial contributions, where appropriate;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Believes that it is necessary, in order to implement a Mediterranean macro- regional strategy, to build on the experience and work of existing regional institutions and to seek possible synergies with them, particularly, in addition to the UFM, the European Investment Bank and ARLEM;
Amendment 17 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that appropriate resources should be devoted to the development of a new Ionian-AdriaticMediterranean macro-regional strategy, with sufficient safeguards tohile ensureing that existing financing is used in anas effective mannerly as possible, promoting, where necessary, the principle of 'more for more', and always in strict compliance with the rule of law and on the basis of respect for human rights;
Amendment 21 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises the need to involve, right from when the strategy is laid down, the non-EU Member States and regions to be integrated into a Mediterranean macro- region, using the Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument for this purpose;
Amendment 22 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that major areas of intervention for the Ionian-Adriatica Mediterranean macro- region shcould, in particular, be the promotion of sustainable tourism, which could help small and medium-sized enterprises; the development of sustainable maritime transport, which could alleviate the problems relating to road transport; the introduction of measures to protect the Mediterranean Sea against pollution; and the strengthening of effective public administration, to tackle any possible issues of inefficient governancemaritime security and safety and protection of the maritime environment, by establishing an integrated network of reporting and surveillance systems for maritime activities; the development of transregional energy networks; and scientific and academic cooperation;
Amendment 28 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 32 #
2011/2179(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 7 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
– having regard to its Written Declaration No 15/2011 of 27 September 2011 on the establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes,
Amendment 11 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
– having regard to its resolutions of 19 January 2006 on the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)2 , of 15 November 2007 on strengthening the ENP3 , of 6 July 2006 on the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)4 , of 5 June 2008 on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP5 , of 19 February 2009 on the review of the ENPI6 , of 19 February 2009 on the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean7 , of 17 January 2008 on a Black Sea Regional Policy Approach8 , of 20 January 2011 on an EU Strategy for the Black Sea9 , of 20 May 2010 on the Union for the Mediterranean10 , of 20 May 2010 on the Need for an EU Strategy for the South Caucasus11 , of 9 September 2010 on the situation of the Jordan River, with special regard to the Lower Jordan River area12 ,of 3 February 2011 on the situation in Tunisia13 , of 17 February 2011 on the situation in Egypt14 , of 10 March 2011 on the Southern Neighbourhood, and Libya in particular, including humanitarian aspects15 and, of 7 July 2011 on Syria, Yemen and Bahrain in the context of the situation in the Arab World and North Africa, and of 15 September 2011 on the situation in Syria,
Amendment 14 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
– having regard to the conclusions of the inaugural meeting of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) held in Barcelona on 21 January 2010,
Amendment 24 #
2011/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Council and the Commission to set up a structured dialogue with third country authorities in order to develop a win-win approach to mobility and progress towards visa liberalisation beyond a visa facilitation only for targeted groups; and to evaluate the existing mobility partnerships, particularly the interdependence between development aid, regular migration and irregular migration as defined in the Global Approach to Migration; emphasises in this connection the need for the Seasonal Workers Directive to effectively safeguard immigrants’ rights and their working on an equal footing, so as to encourage the movement of workers from neighbouring countries and act as a disincentive to unofficial immigration;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the ENP should take account of the new regional context and the demonstrations calling for freedom, democracy and reforms in several countries in the EU’s Southern Neighbourhood, as they illustrated the strong desire among the people for genuine change and better living conditions in the region,
Amendment 27 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas, in this new context, relations with these countries should be given fresh impetus, based on cooperation focusing on democracy and prosperity on both shores of the Mediterranean, and not only security and migration control,
Amendment 35 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the EU needs to define more precisely its strategic goals and priorities in its partnership with its eastern and southern neighbours, and should attach due importance to the relevant items on its political agenda and in its budgetary planning,
Amendment 47 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU should provide itself with flexible and properly funded instruments in order to match its ambitions and events in the regions,
Amendment 51 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. having regard to the European Parliament’s support for the establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes through Written Declaration 15/2011 of 27 September 2011,
Amendment 56 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Strongly welcomes the Joint Communications of the Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on A new response to a changing Neighbourhood and A partnership for democracy and shared prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean and the approach presented therein, in particular regarding the principles of mutual accountability and shared commitment to universal values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as well as conditionality and a tailor- made approach towards the partner countries;
Amendment 57 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Strongly welcomes the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on A new response to a changing Neighbourhood and the approach presented therein, in particular regarding the principles of mutual accountability and shared commitment to universal values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as well as conditionality and a tailor- made approach towards the partner countries together with the advancing of multilateral and sub-regional cooperation;
Amendment 72 #
2011/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission and Council to launch, in tandem with Parliament, an in-depth debate on management of the external borders that reflects, in particular, the new situation in the countries of the southern Mediterranean and provides a fitting response to the humanitarian needs and democratic expectations of those countries; considers that this will require a rethink of the role of the European agencies competent for such matters, and especially that of Frontex;
Amendment 75 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Although the EU does not seek to impose a model or a ready-made recipe for political reforms, uUnderlines that the ENP is based on shared values and the commitment to democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance;
Amendment 95 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the proposal for a European Endowment for Democracy, which is a timely response to the clamour for democracy by the populations of our neighbouring countries; underlines that it should be based on the principles of transparency and flexibility and should complement already-existing EU Instruments and the exemplary work of longstanding European political or non- political foundations; stresses that its scope and organisation should be clearly defined and that its structures and procedures should be light and straightforward; calls for a truly political steering committee to be established with the participation of the European Parliament, which should also be involved in the ex-post control mechanisms;
Amendment 124 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the EEAS and the Commission to strengthen the role of civil society organisations, in particular human rights and women’s organisations, in policy monitoring; notes that civil society organisations are the EU’s faithful and powerful allies in promoting democratic values, good governance and human rights in partner countries; calls for the increased involvement of regional and local authorities and of professional organisations and the social partners in EU cooperation with its southern neighbours; calls on the Council and the Commission to further strengthen and make more effective use of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights in this regard;
Amendment 133 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that human rights situations should be continuously monitored and that an annual assessment of the situation couldmust be included in the annex to the annual progress report of each partner country with a clear mechanism to reconsider and progressively limit bilateral cooperation if human rights violations are confirmed;
Amendment 155 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses again that economic and social development and a higher standard of living are essential for consolidating political reforms and achieving social stability in the partner countries concerned;
Amendment 157 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that immediate measures, such as cofinancing of already identified flagship or pilot projects or other concrete economic projects of strategic importance, which can be implemented on the ground rapidly, with unquestionable tangible results, should be promptly undertaken to alleviate the situation of the countries currently facing significant socioeconomic crises, with special regard to partner countries where democratic transition aggravates economic difficulties;
Amendment 163 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Strongly supports the promotion of sub-regional cooperation and stresses the importance of developing partner-to- partner bilateral and multilateral economic cooperation, which would bring tangible benefits for citizens and improve the political climate in the region; places particular emphasis on the importance of encouraging the development of ‘South- South’ trade and economic integration among the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean;
Amendment 165 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls on the EU to lend strong support to the process of political and economic reform in the Southern Neighbourhood, by using all existing instruments in order to support as effectively as possible the process of democratic transition, with a focus on respect for fundamental freedoms, good governance, the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, thus responding to the needs and expectations of the peoples of our southern neighbours;
Amendment 168 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Emphasises that the Union must afford special importance to decentralised cooperation at local level, by means of small-scale projects providing immediate and tangible improvements to the quality of life of citizens in neighbouring countries, thereby helping consolidate the progress made towards democracy across the entire territory of these countries;
Amendment 198 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Reaffirms that, for the Sou the aim of thern partnership, with the aimEU’s should be mutually beneficial and ambitious trade arrangements which can lead to DCFTAs, which will surely represent the first step towards a big ‘Euro-Mediterranean Economic Space’, which will also help to solve the economic problems of our neighboring partners in the Souththern neighbours is to bring the two shores of the Mediterranean closer together with a view to establishing an area of peace, democracy, security and prosperity for their 800 million inhabitants, and to provide the EU and its partners with an effective bilateral and multilateral framework enabling them to overcome democratic, social and economic challenges, to promote regional integration, in particular in relation to trade, and to ensure their co-development for the benefit of all;
Amendment 205 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Wishes objective, binding criteria for granting ‘advanced status’ to be defined; stresses the need to clarify the rights and duties arising from this bilateral commitment, both for partner countries and for the EU;
Amendment 239 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines the importance of paying particular attention to the younger generation; stresses that the EU should increase cooperation in the field of education, immediately broadening and increasing scholarship programmes and mobility of students, graduates, teachers and academics by promoting university and high-school exchanges and public- private partnerships in the field of research and enterprises; stresses the strong need for a structured information policy towards the citizens of the ENP partners concerning the possibility of participation in EU programmes;
Amendment 243 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Calls on the Commission to take over Parliament’s proposal, produced in the wake of the Arab Spring, to establish a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus programme, an initiative which – assuming that it were successful – would be suitable to extend to the neighbourhood as a whole; at this stage deplores the inadequacy of the Commission proposals, which, notwithstanding the Commission’s statements on 27 September 2011, in reality provide only for a very modest increase in the number of Erasmus Mundus scholarships;
Amendment 245 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Calls on the Commission to take over Parliament’s proposal, produced in the wake of the Arab Spring, to establish a Euro-Mediterranean Leonardo da Vinci programme aimed at encouraging the mobility of young people wishing to acquire vocational training abroad, the object being to help combat the youth unemployment endemic to the southern Mediterranean;
Amendment 246 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Hopes that partner countries will become more actively involved in the work of the European Training Foundation and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency;
Amendment 251 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that the EU should advance its work on visa facilitation and readmission agreements, with a view to moving – once all conditions are met – to a visa-free regime; believes, further, that the EU should advance its work on readmission agreements if, and only if, the partner country concerned gives sufficient guarantees regarding the protection of human rights; endorses the Commission’s new resolve to conclude visa facilitation and readmission agreements simultaneously, and not separately, so as to overcome bottlenecks; also calls for the material conditions for the issue and renewal of visas to be more respectful of human rights; underlines that the provisions on asylum must be fully in line with international obligations and commitments and EU standards, especially in the human rights field;
Amendment 265 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)
Paragraph 21 d (new)
21d. Reiterates its firmly held view that the European Neighbourhood Policy will not be wholly effective unless synergy is created between its bilateral and multilateral dimensions; considers it essential, therefore, to strengthen the multilateral component of the ENP, to which a more substantial proportion of funding should be allocated under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument;
Amendment 271 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls the importance of cofinancing specific tangible regional projects to contribute to a shared process of development and integration; in this regard, welcomes the opportunity offered by the establishment of the UfM to streNotes that the multilateral component of the ENP should serve to aid the early, effective launch of tangible Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) projects to pave the way for a shared process of development and integration, not least by cofinancing feasibility studies and supporting then complementarity between bilateral policies and regional policies, in order to achieve more effectively the goals of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, based wider use of concessional loans; regarding the current state of play, welcomes the increase in the overall budget onf the mutual recognition of common valuesNeighbourhood Investment Facility;
Amendment 275 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Is convinced that the UfM should be relaunched to take account of the new developments in the region; takes the view that the UfM should promote sound economic, social and democratic development and create a strong and common basis for a close relationship between the EU and its southern neighbours;
Amendment 302 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses that the contractual relations with all ENP countries contain arrangements for a regular forum to address human rights issues, in the form of subcommittees on human rights; calls on the EEAS to make full use of these arrangements and involve existing subcommittees in any negotiations,
Amendment 310 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes the proposal for the new European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) and the increase of funding for the ENP, as requested in its previous resolutions; considers that the distribution of funds should be flexible and adequate for both regions, with an approach that is performance-driven and not geographically drivencentred on commitments and progress as regards reforms in partner countries, as well as on their needs and capacities; notes that more flexibility and simplification should respect the right of democratic scrutiny and be accompanied by increased supervision of the spending;
Amendment 340 #
2011/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Welcomes the work carried out by the European Investment Bank and, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the EIB’s Facility for Euro- Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), and underlines the importance of and the need for more synergies with other international financial institutions also active in these countries; supports the modification of the EBRD’s statutes in order for the Southern neighbourhood partners also to be eligible for its assistance;
Amendment 190 #
2011/0436(APP)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 6
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 6
– Debates/studies and interventions on defining moments in European history, in particular to keep the memory alive of the crimes committed under Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism, and all the dictatorships that have afflicted Europe;
Amendment 237 #
2011/0436(APP)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex – part 1 – section 1 – paragraph 2
Annex – part 1 – section 1 – paragraph 2
It will support activities that invite to reflection on common values in the broadest sense, taking into account diversity. Funds may be available for initiatives reflecting on causes of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes in Europe'’s modern history (especially but not exclusively Nazism and Stalinism) and to commemorate their victims. The strand should also encompass activities concerning other reference points in recent European history. In particular, it will give preference to actions which encourage tolerance and reconciliation with a view to reaching the younger generation.
Amendment 719 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex – Part I – point b – rows 28 a-c (new)
Annex – Part I – point b – rows 28 a-c (new)
Palencia – Other Core Rail Studies and Santander Network works Castejón – Other Core Rail Studies and Logroño – Network works Miranda Almería – Other Core Rail Studies and Málaga – Network works Algeciras (along the coast)
Amendment 649 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 a (new)
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 a (new)
- major airports with more than 1% passenger air traffic within the EU.
Amendment 878 #
2011/0294(COD)
add the following multimodal platforms to the comprehensive network: – Pontevedra – Zalia – Torrelavega – Júndiz – Monzón – El Vallés – El Prat – El Gorguel – Ciudad Real – Albacete – San Roque – Mérida – Ponferrada/El Bierzo – Castellón – Alicante – Benavente – Zamora – Miranda de Ebro – Burgos – Palencia – Área Central – Aranda de Duero – Soria – Arévalo – Ávila – Segovia
Amendment 879 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 16/33
Annex I – Volume 16/33
add the following rail freight transport sections to the core network: – Almería – Málaga – Algeciras (along the coast) – Granada – Motril – Castejón – Logroño – Miranda – León – Gijón / Avilés – Palencia – Santander – Madrid – Cáceres – Mérida – Mérida – Badajoz – Portuguese border – Mora – Ciudad Real – Mérida
Amendment 881 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 16/33
Annex I – Volume 16/33
Amendment 887 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 17/33
Annex I – Volume 17/33
add the following airports to the core network: – Alicante – Gran Canaria – Málaga – Tenerife South (‘Tenerife Sur’) – Tenerife North (‘Tenerife Norte’) – Santiago de Compostela
Amendment 891 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 17/33
Annex I – Volume 17/33
add the following rail passenger transport sections to the core network: – Madrid – Toledo – Madrid – Alcázar – Albacete – Murcia – Almería – Málaga – Algeciras (along the coast) – Avilés – Oviedo – Bilbao – Santander – Oviedo – El Ferrol – A Coruña – Castejón – Logroño – Miranda – Mora – Alcázar – Linares – Moreda/Jaén/Córdoba – Ourense – Vigo (via Cercedo) – Ourense – Monforte – Lugo – A Coruña – Palencia – Santander – Segovia – Ávila – Sevilla – Cádiz – Sevilla – Huelva – Portuguese border – Valencia – Alicante (along the coast) – Motilla – Albacete – La Encina – Santiago – Vigo – Portuguese border – Granada – Motril – Antequera – Málaga – Madrid – Ávila – Salamanca – León – Monforte – Torralba – Soria – Castejón – Plasencia – León – Gijón
Amendment 892 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 17/33
Annex I – Volume 17/33
add the following rail passenger transport sections to the comprehensive network: – Almendricos – Águilas – Barcelona – Massanet – Barcelona – Puigcerdá – Játiva – Alcoy – Lleida – Manresa – Barcelona – Los Rosales – Zafra – Madrid – Burgos – Villalba – Segovia
Amendment 894 #
2011/0294(COD)
add the following high-quality road sections to the comprehensive network: – Valladolid – Aranda de Duero – Soria – Ourense – Santiago – Ourense – Guntín – Ponferrada – Ourense – Monforte – Chantada – Astorga – León – Burgos – Burgos – Logroño – Pamplona – Ávila – Salamanca – León – Valladolid – Segovia – Valladolid – Ávila – Maqueda – Toledo – Ocaña – Tarancón – Cuenca – Teruel – Alfajarín – Fraga -Catalayud – Daroca – Alcolea del Pinar – Monreal del Campo – Badajoz – Zafra – Córdoba – Baena – Granada – Huelva – Jabugo – Zafra – Estepa – Lucena – Baena – Jaén – Úbeda – Blanca – Avarán – La Font de la Figuera – Alicante – Alcoy – Játiva – Elche – Cartagena – Vera – Figueras – Puigcerdá – Ávila – Villacastín – San Rafael – Segovia
Amendment 966 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Section 1b
Annex II – Section 1b
add Cagliari (IT), Heraklion (EL), Las Palmas (ES), Tenerife (ES) and Málaga (ES)
Amendment 290 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) In order to promote the Treaty objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, the 'Investment for growth and jobs' goal should support all regions. To provide balanced and gradual support and reflect the real level of economic and social development, resources under that goal should be allocated from the ERDF and the ESF among the less developed regions, the transition regions and the more developed regions according to their gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in relation to the EU average. In order to ensure the long- term sustainability of investment from the Structural Funds, and to encourage the economic growth and social cohesion of the European regions, regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-–2013 period was less than 75 % of the average of the EU-25 for the reference period but whose GDP per capita has grown to more than 75 % of the EU-27 average should receive at least two thirds of their 2007-–2013 allocation for the purpose of consolidating the development achieved. Member States whose per capita gross national income (GNI) is less than 90 % of that of the Union average should benefit under the 'Investment for growth and jobs' goal from the CF. In the aim of reflecting the real impact of the crisis, it is necessary to revise the economic data used and introduce new criteria such as the rate of unemployment to allocate cohesion policy funds, and to introduce an adjustment clause that allows for revising the category of the regions during the period, depending on substantial changes in circumstances, so that greater support may be given to a region for any deterioration.
Amendment 1238 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
All regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-–2013 period was less than 75 % of the average of the EU-25 for the reference period but whose GDP per capita is above 75 % of the GDP average of the EU-27 shall receive an allocation under the Structural Funds equal to at least two thirds of their 2007-–2013 allocation with the goal of consolidating the development achieved.
Amendment 15 #
2011/0177(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its support for all the instruments for implementing the European Union’s external action proposed for the 2014-2020 period, and in particular for the partnership instrument that is aimed at inaugurating a new form of cooperation with countries which have a strategic interest for the European Union; reiterates, furthermore, its support to the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, who can rest assured that the EU will ensure the financial cooperation of the Mediterranean countries, particularly in respect of the funding of SMEs and microcredits;
Amendment 89 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are granted access to a lawyer of his her own choosing or to legal aid according to national legislation as soon as possible and in any eventof the earliest situations:
Amendment 97 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) upon carrying out any procedural or evidence-gathering act at which the person’s presence is required or permitted as a right in accordance with national law, unless this would prejudice the acquisition of evidencexcept where the person responsible for the act reasonably believes that the evidence to be gathered will be altered, removed, destroyed as a result of the passage of time needed to the lawyer to arrive;
Amendment 99 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) immediately from the outset of deprivation of liberty.
Amendment 102 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall notify suspects and accused persons that they have a right of access to a lawyer in accordance with the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. They shall also ensure that this right is communicated in an appropriate manner that can be understood by all persons, including children and vulnerable.
Amendment 109 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The suspect or accused person shall have the right to be represented and meet with the lawyer of his her own choosing or with the one issued from the legal aid system according to national legislation and representing him.
Amendment 120 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The lawyer shall have the right to be present at any other investigative or evidence-gathering act at which the suspect or accused person’s presence is required or permitted as a right, in accordance with national law, unless this would prejudice the acquisition of evidencexcept where the person responsible for the act reasonably believes that the evidence to be gathered will be altered, removed, destroyed as a result of the passage of time needed for the the lawyer to arrive.
Amendment 126 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The lawyer shall have the right to check theo the extent necessary to ensure a fair trial and prevent torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, the lawyer shall be allowed to examine the specific conditions in which the suspect or accused person is detained and to thisat end shall have access to the place where the person is detained.
Amendment 130 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a person to whom Article 2 refers and who is deprived of his liberty has the right to communicate immediately with at least one person named by him as soon as possible.
Amendment 131 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Where the person is a child or a vulnerable person, Member States shall ensure that the child’s legal representative or another adult, depending on the interest of the child or the vulnerable person, is informed as soon as possible of the deprivation of liberty and the reasons pertaining thereto, unless it would be contrary to the best interests of the child or the vulnerable person, in which case another appropriate adult or legal representative shall be informed.
Amendment 134 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6
Article 6
Member States shall ensure that persons to whom Article 2 refers, who are deprived of their liberty and who are non-nationals have the right to have consular or diplomatic authorities of their State of nationality informed of the detention as soon as possiblepromptly upon their arrest or detention of the detention/arrest and to communicate with the consular or diplomatic authorities. Such authorities have the right to visit such persons and to arrange for their legal representation, and to observe court proceedings in relation to the person.
Amendment 136 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7
Article 7
Member States shall ensure that the confidentiality of meetings between the suspect or accused person and his lawyer is guaranteed. They shall also ensure the confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations and other forms of communication permitted under national law between the suspect or accused person and his lawyer. Confidentiality shall not be subject to any exception; any infringement thereof shall be sanctioned in accordance with national law.
Amendment 141 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) shall be justified by compelling reasons in the light of the particular circumstances of the case pertaining to the urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life or physical integrity of a person;
Amendment 145 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) shallmust not go beyond what is necessary;
Amendment 146 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) shall bemust be strictly limited in time as much as possible and in any event not extend to the trial stage;
Amendment 147 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) shallmust not prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.
Amendment 149 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Derogations may only be authorised by a duly reasoned decision taken by an independent judicial authority on a case- by-case basis. The duly reasoned decision shall be recorded in writing.
Amendment 150 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
The grounds and criteria for derogations listed above must be clearly set out in national law.
Amendment 151 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) he has the necessary capacity to understand these consequences and has reached the age of majority
Amendment 152 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the waiver is given voluntarily and unequivocally in writing.
Amendment 158 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any person other than a suspect or accused person who is heard by the police or other enforcement authority in the context of a criminal procedure is granted access to a lawyer if, in the course of questioning, interrogation or hearing, he becomes suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. This person has to be informed promptly that he or she is a suspect and/or accused person. Any such questioning, interrogation or hearing shall be suspended immediately.
Amendment 160 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Access to a lawyer shall be granted in such a time and manner as to allow the suspect or accused person to exercise his rights of defence effectively.
Amendment 163 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
- the right that he and his lawyer have access to the materials of the case;
Amendment 165 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The lawyer of this person in the issuing Member State shall have the right to carry out activities limited to what is needed to assist the lawyer in the executing Member State, with a view to the effective exercise of the person’s rights in the executing Member State under that Council Framework Decision, in particular under its Articles 3 and 4.
Amendment 168 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall not apply less favourable provisions on legal aid than those currently in place in respect of access to a lawyer provided pursuant to this Directiveensure that suspects and accused persons are granted with effective legal aid according to national legislation.
Amendment 169 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a Definition of a lawyer 1. Member States shall take concrete measures to ensure that the lawyer has appropriate accreditation to effectively represent the suspect or accused person in accordance with this Directive. 2. In order to ensure that only accredited lawyers provide legal assistance, Member States shall endeavour to establish a register or registers of accredited lawyers who are appropriately qualified. Once established, such register or registers shall, where appropriate, be made available to relevant authorities.
Amendment 170 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a person to whom Article 2 and article 10 refers has an effective remedy in instances where his right of access to a lawyer has been breached.
Amendment 176 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that statements made by the suspect or accused person or evidence obtained in breach of his right to a lawyer or in cases where a derogation to this right was authorised in accordance with Article 8, may not be used for his/her conviction at any stage of the procedure as evidence against him, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the rights of the defence.
Amendment 1 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
Article 1
This Regulation applies to protection measures taken in civil matters whatever the nature of the authority issuing the protection measure. It does not apply to protection measures covered by Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 or to the protection measures covered by Directive [...] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European protection order, in order to prevent overlapping between the civil law and criminal law systems.
Amendment 2 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a
Article 2 – point a
(a) 'protection measure' means any decision, whatever it may be called, of a preventive and temporary nature taken by an authority in a Member State in accordance with its national law with a view to protecting an individual person when serious reasons exist to consider the person's life, physical and/or psychological integrity or liber, dignity, personal liberty or sexual integrity to be at risk. It shall include measures ordered without the person causing the risk being summoned to appear. The following are notably protection measures: (i) an obligation not to enter(If the part of this amendment concerning the words "person's life, ...or sexual integrity" is adopted, corresponding modifications will need to be made throughout the text) Protection measures may include one or more of the following obligations or prohibitions: (i) a prohibition from entering and/or remaining in certain localities, places or defined areas where the protected person resides, works or that he visits; or (ii) an obligation not to enter into prohibition or regulation of contact, in any form, with the protected person, including by phone, electronic or ordinary mail, fax or any other means; or (iii) an obligation not to prohibition or regulation on approaching the protected person closer than a prescribed distance; or (iv) a decision attributing the exclusive use of the common housing of two persons to the protected person; or (iva) any other prohibitions or regulations imposed in order to guarantee the protection of the protected person.
Amendment 3 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
2. Upon reception of the certificate pursuant to Article 5 provided by the protected person, the competent authorities of the Member State of recognition shall, without delay and where necessary according to the rules of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, bring to the notice of the person causing the risk and to the protected person: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents)1, bring to the notice of the person causing the risk and to the protected person and, where appropriate, his or her legal representative, guardian or tutor in a language which they understand: _______________ 1 OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, p. 79.
Amendment 4 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When bringing to the notice of the person causing the risk the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the competent authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the Member State of recognition shall be particularly attentive to the fact that it is not in the interests of the protected person to have his or her address or other personal details divulged unless this is necessary for the purposes of enforcement of the protection measure.
Amendment 5 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19a Data collection In order to facilitate evaluation of the application of this Regulation, Member States shall communicate to the Commission relevant data relating to the application of national procedures on the issuing of certificates referred to in Article 5 and the transmission thereof between competent authorities. Those data shall include, at least, information on the number of protection measures and certificates requested, issued and/or recognised and on the number of certificates refused, suspended and/or withdrawn, as well as the reasons for such refusal and/or withdrawal, with due regard for the fundamental principles of privacy and the protection of personal data.
Amendment 6 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
Amendment 7 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) The certificate should not be susceptible of appeal. However, if the protection measure is suspended or withdrawn in the Member State of origin, the competent authority of that Member State should inform the competent authority of the Member State of recognition thereof, which should immediately suspend or withdraw the recognition and/or enforcement of the protection measure accordingly.
Amendment 83 #
2011/0130(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20
Article 20
By [fiveour years from the date of application in Article 23] at the latest, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this Regulation and on the interaction between this Regulation and Directive [...]of the European Parliament and of the Council [of ...] on the European Protection Order. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals for adaptation.
Amendment 212 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1
Article 1
The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that all victims of crime receive appropriate protection and support and are able to participate in criminal proceedings or other judicial proceedings related to the crime and are recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive and professional manner, without discrimination of any kind, in all contacts with any publiccompetent authority, victim support or restorative justice service or other bodies dealing with victims of crime.
Amendment 239 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point e
Article 2 – point e
(e) ‘restorative justice services’ means services which have as their objective to bring together the victim and the accused with a view to reaching a voluntary agreement between them on how the harm arising from the offence can be addresfacilitate a process of restoring justice in which the accused is taking responsibility, engaging in reparation, paying damages and compensation which can lead to an out-of-court settlement of the criminal case, if the victim agrees to it and if the reparation conditions are fulfilled by the accused;
Amendment 245 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point g a (new)
Article 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) ‘gender-based violence’ means violence against women which is a form of discrimination according to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionally, or which is directed against a person because of his or her gender or gender identity;
Amendment 249 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point g b (new)
Article 2 – point g b (new)
(gb) ‘violence in close relationships’ means violence that is committed against a victim by a person who is a current or former spouse or partner or other family member of the victim. Women are affected disproportionally by this type of violence and the crime is aggravated by the fact that they are also often dependent on the accused financially, socially or as regards their right to residence .
Amendment 262 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point h
Article 3 – point h
(h) if they are resident in another Member State, any special arrangements available to them in order to protect their interests; such as the request of issuing a European protection order.
Amendment 267 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In addition to the information referred to in the first paragraph, Member States shall ensure that where the victims have suffered major trauma, they are provided with the following information: (a) the extent to which they are entitled to medical care ; (b) the extent to which they are entitled to specialist and adequate support ; (c) how and under what conditions they can obtain assistance with finding suitable alternative accommodation with appropriate security arrangements. (d) how and under what conditions they can obtain protection measures and move within the Union with the same level of protection.
Amendment 271 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that victims are notified, without undue delay, of their right to receive the following information on their case and that they receive this information where they have expressed such a wish:
Amendment 281 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to be notified when the personithout undue delay, when the person arrested, remanded in custody, prosecuted or sentenced for offences concerning them is released from detention. Victims shall receive this information where they have expressed such a wishor has escaped detention, including pre-trial detention. Victims shall also be informed without undue delay of any restraining orders issued by the criminal justice authorities for the protection of victims such as no-contact orders. Member States shall ensure that victims are provided with effective support and assistance when receiving this information. Victims shall receive this information unless the competent authority is aware that notification of release is likely to result in harm to the offender .
Amendment 315 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that victims and their family members, in accordance with their needs, have access to free of charge, confidential victim support services have access to free of charge, confidential and appropriate victim support services acting independently and in the interest of the victim from the moment the victims suffer harm, during the criminal proceedings and after their conclusion and regardless of where the crime took place. Victims with specific needs shall have access to victim support services specialised in the type of crime the victim suffered, in order to get the best quality support.
Amendment 324 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) information on or referral to, as appropriate, specialist servicesdirect referral to specialist services for victims with specific needs in order to avoid victims having to be referred to those services repeatedly and having to report the crime repeatedly;
Amendment 327 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall facilitate the referral of victims, by the authority that received the complaint and other relevant agencies, to victim supportcompetent authority and by other relevant agencies that received the complaint, to victim support services. Repeat referrals shall be avoided and victims with specific needs shall be referred directly to specialised services.
Amendment 339 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9
Article 9
Member States shall ensure that victims may bare heard during criminal proceedings and mayhave the right to supply evidence.
Amendment 349 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall establish standards totake measures to ensure that the victim has access to safe, competent restorative justice services that safeguard the victim from intimidation or further victimisation, to be applied when providing mediation or other restorative justice services. Such standards shouldmeasures shall as a minimum include the following:
Amendment 353 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) mediation or restorative justice services are used only if they areavailable to all victims of crime who choose to access them in their own interest of the victim, subject to any safety considerations, and based on the victims' free and informed consent; this consent may be withdrawn at any time;
Amendment 356 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) before agreeing to participate in the process, the victim is provided with full and unbiased information about the process and the potential outcomes as well as information about the procedures for supervising the implementation of any agreement;
Amendment 359 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the suspected or accused person or offender must have accepted responsibility for their actoffender must have acknowledged the basic facts of the case;
Amendment 362 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) discussions in mediation or other restorative justice processes that are not conducted in public are confidential and are not subsequently disclosed, except with the agreement of the parties or as required by national law due to an overriding public interest.
Amendment 365 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall facilitate the referral of caspromote and facilitate victims' access to mediation or other restorative justice services, including through the establishment of protocolguidelines on the conditions for referral.
Amendment 372 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Member States shall ensure that victims have accessthe right, in accordance with procedures in national law, to legal aid, where they have the status of parties to criminal proceedings.
Amendment 385 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, in the course of criminal proceedings, victims are entitled to obtain a decision on compensation by the offender, within a reasonable time. (Linguistic amendment affecting only the English version of the text)
Amendment 387 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The first subparagraph shall not apply where national law provides for restitution or compensation to be awarded in another manner. However, victims shall not be referred to civil proceedings in order to claim damages or compensation since that could subject them to re-traumatisation, stress and other unreasonable burdens.
Amendment 389 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take measures to encouraoblige offenders to provide adequate compensation to victims.
Amendment 399 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that measures are available to identify any possible risks of retaliation, intimidation repeat or further victimisation and to protect the safety and dignity of victims and their family members from retaliation, intimidation, repeat or further victimisation, such as interim injunctions or protection and restraining orders from their first contact with a competent authority, during and after the conclusion of criminal and any related legal proceedings.
Amendment 405 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1, shall in particular include measures and procedures for the physical protection of victims and their family members, measures to ensure that contact between offenders and victims may be avoided within premises where cand their family members may be avoided from the time of the reporting, during and after criminal and other legal proceedings related to the crime, for instance through interim inal proceedings are conducted, andjunctions or protective and restraining orders. Such injunctions and orders are especially important for women victims of partner violence and victims of domestic violence were the victim and the accused live together. The measures shall also include measures to ensure that the risk of psychological or emotional harm to victims during questioning or when testifying is minimised and their safety and dignity are secured.
Amendment 443 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that all vulnerable victims as identified in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, receive a timely and ithe individual assessments referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 are carried out in cooperation with the victim at regular stages throughout the criminal proceedings in order to take account of any changes in the risk factors, personal characteristics or circumstances, needs and wishes of victims. Individual assessment,s shall take into accordance with national procedures, to determine which special measures as provided in Articles 21 and 22unt the following factors: (a) the type and nature of crime, the risk factor posed by the accused, the impact on and consequences for the victims, the trauma caused by the crime, the risk of retaliation and repeat victimisation; (b) the personal characteristics of the victim such as age, gender and gender identity, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, health, disability, legal status, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on they should benefit from. Such an assessment shall take into accountuspected or accused person, previous experience of crime; (c) the circumstances of the crime such as whether a person is victimised abroad; (d) the type or nature of the crime such as whether exploitation or physical or sexual violence has been used; (e) the wishes of the vulnerable victims including whethere they do not wish to benefit from specialfic measures.
Amendment 503 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that police, prosecutors and, court staff, lawyers, and any other officials likely to come into contact with victims receive both general and specialist training and guidelines to a level appropriate to their contact with victims to train and sensitise them to the rights and needs of victims and to deal with them in an impartial, respectful and professional and empowering manner.
Amendment 513 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that members of the judiciary have access to both general and specialist training to sensitise and train them to the rights and needs of victims and to deal with them in an impartial, respectful and professional manner.
Amendment 517 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall take measures to ensure that those providing victim support and restorative justice services and other agencies coming into contact with victims of crime, such as health agencies receive adequate training to a level appropriate to their contact with victims and observe professional standards to ensure such services are provided in an impartial, respectful and, professional and empowering manner.
Amendment 522 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 4
Article 24 – paragraph 4
4. In accordance with the duties involved, and the nature and level of contact the practitioner has with victims, training shall as a minimum include matters relating to the rights of the victims, the impact that crime has on victims, the risks of intimidation, repeat and secondary victimisation and how these can be avoided and the availability and relevance of support to victims.
Amendment 536 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 27
Article 27
Member States shall collect and communicate to the European Commission data related to the application of national procedures on victims of crime by [two years after the date of adoption] at the latest. , including at least the number, type and nature of reported crimes, the gender and age of the victims and the perpetrators, the nationality of the victims, the relationship of the perpetrators to the victims, the geographical location as well as the type of services provided to the victims. Member States shall also provide data on the number of acquittals, the number of convictions, the number of protection orders issued to protect victims and data on the implementation of this Directive.
Amendment 9 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
Amendment 11 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1 a) The Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 25 March 2011, and particularly paragraphs 7 to 16 and 25, 55, and 57, stated that the proposed Directive did not meet the essential prerequisite of any development of a PNR scheme, i.e. compliance with the necessity and proportionality principles, to the extent that the EDPS questioned the inclusion in the proposal of serious crimes which have no link with terrorism.
Amendment 12 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) Opinion 10/2011 of the Article 29 Working Party adopted on 5 April 2011 stating that there was a lack of information on the effectiveness and appropriateness of existing EU systems and tools for police and judicial co- operation to fight terrorism and organised crime, questioned the necessity of such a proposal and expressed serious doubts about the proportionality of the collection of a huge amount of personal information on passengers regardless of whether or not they are suspects.
Amendment 13 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) PNR data may help law enforcement authorities prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crimes, including acts of terrorism, by comparing them with various databases of persons and objects sought, to construct evidence and, where relevant, to find associates of criminals and unravel criminal networksacts of terrorism.
Amendment 14 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) PNR data enable law enforcement authorities to identify persons who were previously ‘'unknown’', i.e. persons previously unsuspected of involvement in serious crime and terrorism, but whom an analysis of the data suggests may be involved in such crime and who should therefore be subject to further examination by the competent authorities. By using PNR data law enforcement authorities can address the threat of serious crime and terrorism from a different perspective than through the processing of other categories of personal data. However, in order to ensure that the processing of data of innocent and unsuspected persons remains as limited as possible, the aspects of the use of PNR data relating to the creation and application of assessment criteria should be further limited to sterious crimrorist offences that are also transnational in nature, i.e. are intrinsically linked to travelling and hence the type of the data being processed.
Amendment 15 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) To prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, it is therefore essential that all Member States introduce provisions laying down obligations on air carriers operating international flights to or from the territory of the Member States of the European Union.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The definition of terrorist offences should be taken from Articles 1 to 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism. The definition of serous crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedure between Member States. However, Member States may exclude those minor offences for which, taking into account their respective criminal justice system, the processing of PNR data pursuant to this directive would not be in line with the principle of proportionality. The definition of serious transnational crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.
Amendment 17 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) PNR data should be transferred to a single designated unit (Passenger Information Unit) in the relevant Member State, so as to ensure clarity and reduce costs to air carriers. The general budget of the European Union should, where necessary, provide financial support for the Member States or the passenger airlines to cover the cost of establishing, running and maintaining their own PNR systems, and transferring PNR data.
Amendment 18 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The contents of any lists of required PNR data to be obtained by the Passenger Information Unit should be drawn up with the objective of reflecting the legitimate requirements of public authorities to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences or serious crime, thereby improving internal security within the Union as well as protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, notably privacy and the protection of personal data. Such lists should not contain any personal data that could reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or data concerning health or sexual life of the individual concerned. The PNR data should contain details on the passenger's reservation and travel itinerary which enable competent authorities to identify air passengers representing a threat to internal security.
Amendment 19 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Each Member State should be responsible for assessing the potential threats related to terrorist offences and serious crime.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should share with other Member States the PNR data that they receive where such transfer is necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to other Union instruments on the exchange of information between police and judicial authorities, including Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol)39 and Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 September 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union. Such exchange of PNR data between law enforcement and judicial authorities should be governed by the rules on police and judicial cooperation.
Amendment 21 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The period during which PNR data are to be retained should be proportionate to the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. Because of the nature of the data and their uses, it is necessary that the PNR data are retained for a sufficiently long period for carrying out analysis and for use in investigations. In order to avoid disproportionate use, it is necessary that, after an initial period, the data are anonymised and only accessible under very strict and limited conditions.
Amendment 22 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) This Directive does not affect the possibility for Member States to provide, under their domestic law, for a system of collection and handling of PNR data for purposes other than those specified in this Directive, or from transportation providers other than those specified in the Directive, regarding internal flights subject to compliance with relevant data protection provisions, provided that such domestic law respects the Union acquis. The issue of the collection of PNR data on internal flights should be the subject of specific reflection at a future date.
Amendment 23 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) As a result of the legal and technical differences between national provisions concerning the processing of personal data, including PNR, air carriers are and will be faced with different requirements regarding the types of information to be transmitted, as well as the conditions under which this information needs to be provided to competent national authorities. These differences may be prejudicial to effective cooperation between the competent national authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 25 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) The prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime according to Article 4(2)(b) and (c); and;
Amendment 26 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 27 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 28 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – introductory part
Amendment 29 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point i
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point i
Amendment 30 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point ii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point ii
Amendment 31 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point iii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point iii
Amendment 32 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point iv
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – point iv
Amendment 33 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall set up or designate an authority competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime or a branch of such an authority to act as its ‘'Passenger Information Unit’' responsible for collecting PNR data from the air carriers, storing them, analysing them and transmitting the result of the analysis to the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. Its staff members may be seconded from competent public authorities.
Amendment 34 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) carrying out an assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the Member State in order to identify any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crime and who require further examination by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. In carrying out such an assessment the Passenger Information Unit may compare PNR data against relevant databases, including international or national databases or national mirrors of Union databases, where they are established on the basis of Union law, on persons or objects sought or under alert, in accordance with Union, international and national rules applicable to such files. Member States shall ensure that any positive match resulting from such automated processing is individually reviewed by non-automated means in order to verify whether the competent authority referred to in Article 5 needs to take action;
Amendment 35 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) responding, on a case-by-case basis, to duly reasoned requests from competent authorities to provide PNR data and process PNR data in specific cases for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of a terrorist offence or serious crime, and to provide the competent authorities with the results of such processing; and
Amendment 36 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) analysing PNR data for the purpose of updating or creating new criteria for carrying out assessments in order to identify any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime pursuant to point (a).
Amendment 37 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the Member State referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 shall be carried out in a non- discriminatory manner on the basis of common assessment criteria established by its Passenger Information Unit. Member States shall ensure that the assessment criteria are set by the Passenger Information Units, in cooperation with the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. The assessment criteria shall in no circumstances be based on a person's race or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical belief, political opinion, trade union membership, health or sexual life.
Amendment 38 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member or a group of Member States State shall transfer the PNR data or the results of the processing of PNR data of the persons identified in accordance with points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 for further examination to the relevant competent authorities of the same Member State. Such transfers shall only be made on a case-by- case basis.
Amendment 39 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall adopt a list of the competent authorities entitled to request or receive PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data from the Passenger Information Units in order to examine that information further or take appropriate action for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime.
Amendment 40 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities shall consist of authorities competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.
Amendment 40 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title
Title
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
Amendment 41 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The PNR data of passengers and the result of the processing of PNR data received by the Passenger Information Unit may be further processed by the competent authorities of the Member States only for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 42 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. The competent authorities shall not take any decision that produces an adverse legal effect on a person or significantly affects a person only by reason of the automated processing of PNR data. Such decisions shall not be taken on the basis of a person's race or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical belief, political opinion, trade union membership, health or sexual life.
Amendment 42 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 16, 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) thereof,
Amendment 43 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) If the flight does not take off due to force majeure or any other unforeseen circumstance and the travel is cancelled, the PNR data which have been transferred to the Passenger Information Unit shall be deleted immediately.
Amendment 43 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
Amendment 44 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. On a case-by-case basis, upon request from a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with national law, air carriers shall transfer PNR data where access earlier than that mentioned in point (a) of paragraph 2 is necessary to assist in responding to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) Opinion 10/2011 of the Article 29 Working Party adopted on 5 April 2011 stated that there was a lack of information on the effectiveness and appropriateness of existing EU systems and tools for police and judicial co-operation to fight terrorism and organised crime, and questioned the necessity of such a proposal and expressed serious doubts about the proportionality of the collection of a huge amount of personal information on passengers regardless of whether or not they are suspects.
Amendment 45 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, with regard to persons identified by a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with Article 4(2)(a) and (b), the result of the processing of PNR data is transmitted by that Passenger Information Unit to the Passenger Information Units of other Member States where the former Passenger Information Unit considers such transfer to be necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The Passenger Information Units of the receiving Member States shall transmit such PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data to their relevant competent authorities..
Amendment 46 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(1), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The request for such data may be based on any one or a combination of data elements, as deemed necessary by the requesting Passenger Information Unit for a specific case of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. Passenger Information Units shall provide the requested data as soon as practicable and shall provide also the result of the processing of PNR data, if it has already been prepared pursuant to Article 4(2)(a) and (b).
Amendment 47 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(2), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The Passenger Information Unit may request access to specific PNR data kept by the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State in their full form without the masking out only in exceptional circumstances in response to a specific threat or a specific investigation or prosecution related to terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 48 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State or a group of Member States shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(2), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The Passenger Information Unit may request access to specific PNR data kept by the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State in their full form without the masking out only in exceptional circumstances in response to a specific threat or a specific investigation or prosecution related to terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 49 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Only in those cases where it is necessary for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to public security may the competent authorities of a Member State request directly the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2). Such requests shall relate to a specific investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime and shall be reasoned. Passenger Information Units shall respond to such requests as a matter of priority. In all other cases the competent authorities shall channel their requests through the Passenger Information Unit of their own Member State.
Amendment 50 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. Exceptionally, where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, the Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State to provide it with PNR data of flights landing in or departing from the latter's territory at any time.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Article 11 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that air carriers, their agents or other ticket sellers for the carriage of passengers on air service inform passengers of international flights at the time of booking a flight and at the time of purchase of a ticket in a clear and precise manner about the provision of PNR data to the Passenger Information Unit, the purposes of their processing, the period of data retention, their possible use to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, the possibility of exchanging and sharing such data and their data protection rights, in particular the right to complain to a national data protection supervisory authority of their choice. The same information shall be made available by the Member States to the public.
Amendment 52 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) PNR data armay be necessary to effectively prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime and thus enhance internal security.
Amendment 61 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) PNR data may help law enforcement authorities prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crimes, including acts of terrorism, by comparing them with various databases of persons and objects sought, to construct evidence and, where relevant, to find associates of criminals and unravel criminal networksacts of terrorism.
Amendment 69 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) PNR data enable law enforcement authorities to identify persons who were previously ‘unknown’, i.e. persons previously unsuspected of involvement in serious crime and terrorism, but whom an analysis of the data suggests may be involved in such crime and who should therefore be subject to further examination by the competent authorities. By using PNR data law enforcement authorities can address the threat of serious crime and terrorism from a different perspective than through the processing of other categories of personal data. However, in order to ensure that the processing of data of innocent and unsuspected persons remains as limited as possible, the aspects of the use of PNR data relating to the creation and application of assessment criteria should be further limited to serious crimes that are also transnational in nature, i.e. are intrinsically linked to travelling and hence the type of the data being processed i.e. terrorism.
Amendment 77 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) To prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, it is therefore essential that all Member States introduce provisions laying down obligations on air carriers operating international flights to or from the territory of the Member States of the European Union.
Amendment 87 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The definition of terrorist offences should be taken from Articles 1 to 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism. The definition of serous crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedure between Member States. However, Member States mayshould exclude those minor offences for which, taking into account their respective criminal justice system, the processing of PNR data pursuant to this directive would not be in line with the principle of proportionality. The definition of serious transnational crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.
Amendment 90 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The definition of terrorist offences should be taken from Articles 1 to 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism. The definition of serous crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedure between Member States. However, Member States may exclude those minor offences for which, taking into account their respective criminal justice system, the processing of PNR data pursuant to this directive would not be in line with the principle of proportionality. The definition of serious transnational crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.
Amendment 104 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The contents of any lists of required PNR data to be obtained by the Passenger Information Unit should be drawn up with the objective of reflecting the legitimate requirements of public authorities to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences or serious crime, thereby improving internal security within the Union as well as protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, notably privacy and the protection of personal data. Such lists should not contain any personal data that could reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or data concerning health or sexual life of the individual concerned. The PNR data should contain details on the passenger's reservation and travel itinerary which enable competent authorities to identify air passengers representing a threat to internal security.
Amendment 118 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Each Member State should be responsible for assessing the potential threats related to terrorist offences and serious crime.
Amendment 127 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should share with other Member States the PNR data that they receive where such transfer is necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to other Union instruments on the exchange of information between police and judicial authorities, including Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) and Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 September 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union. Such exchange of PNR data between law enforcement and judicial authorities should be governed by the rules on police and judicial cooperation.
Amendment 135 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The period during which PNR data are to be retained should be proportionate to the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. Because of the nature of the data and their uses, it is necessary that the PNR data are retained for a sufficiently long period for carrying out analysis and for use in investigations. In order to avoid disproportionate use, it is necessary that, after an initial period, the data are anonymised and only accessible under very strict and limited conditions.
Amendment 158 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
Amendment 164 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) This Directive does not affect the possibility for Member States to provide, under their domestic law, for a system of collection and handling of PNR data for purposes other than those specified in this Directive, or from transportation providers other than those specified in the Directive, regarding internal flights subject to compliance with relevant data protection provisions, provided that such domestic law respects the Union acquis. The issue of the collection of PNR data on internal flights should be the subject of specific reflection at a future date.
Amendment 167 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) As a result of the legal and technical differences between national provisions concerning the processing of personal data, including PNR, air carriers are and will be faced with different requirements regarding the types of information to be transmitted, as well as the conditions under which this information needs to be provided to competent national authorities. These differences may be prejudicial to effective cooperation between the competent national authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 173 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination as protected by Articles 8, 7 and 21 of the Charter and has to be implemented accordingly. The Directive is compatible with data protection principles, in particular Article 16 TFEU, and its provisions are in line with the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. Furthermore, and in order to comply with the proportionality principle, the Directive, on specific issues, will have stricter rules on data protection than the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.
Amendment 177 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) In particular, the scope of the Directive is as limited as possible, it allows retention of PNR data for period of time not exceeding 5three years, after which the data must be deleted, the data must be anonymised after a very short period, the collection and use of sensitive data is prohibited. In order to ensure efficiency and a high level of data protection, Member States are required to ensure that an independent national supervisory authority is responsible for advising and monitoring how PNR data are processed. All processing of PNR data must be logged or documented for the purpose of verification of the lawfulness of the data processing, self-monitoring and ensuring proper data integrity and security of the data processing. Member States must also ensure that passengers are clearly and precisely informed about the collection of PNR data and their rights.
Amendment 193 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) The prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime according to Article 4(2)(b) and (c); and.
Amendment 196 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 202 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Directive shall not apply to air carriers operating passenger flights within the territory of the Union.
Amendment 215 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 220 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘serious crime’ means the offences under national law referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA if they are punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years under the national law of a Member State, however, Member States mayshall exclude those minor offences for which, taking into account their respective criminal justice system, the processing of PNR data pursuant to this directive would not be in line with the principles of proportionality and necessity;
Amendment 222 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 233 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall set up or designate an authority competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime or a branch of such an authority to act as its ‘Passenger Information Unit’ responsible for collecting PNR data from the air carriers, storing them, analysing them and transmitting the result of the analysis to the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. Its staff members may be seconded from competent public authorities.
Amendment 235 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Staff members joining the Passenger Information Units shall be cleared to have the maximum guarantees of competence and integrity for processing the PNR data collected in accordance with this Directive and may be subject to penalties provided for in Article 10a.
Amendment 257 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) carrying out an assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the Member State in order to identify any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime and who require further examination by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. In carrying out such an assessment, the Passenger Information Unit may process PNR data against pre-determined criteria defined by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. Member States shall ensure that any positive match resulting from such automated processing is individually reviewed by non-automated means in order to verify whether the competent authority referred to in Article 5 needs to take action;
Amendment 263 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) carrying out an assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the Member State in order to identify any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crime and who require further examination by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. In carrying out such an assessment the Passenger Information Unit may compare PNR data against relevant databases, including international or national databases or national mirrors of Union databases, where they are established on the basis of Union law, on persons or objects sought or under alert, in accordance with Union, international and national rules applicable to such files. Member States shall ensure that any positive match resulting from such automated processing is individually reviewed by non-automated means in order to verify whether the competent authority referred to in Article 5 needs to take action;
Amendment 267 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) responding, on a case-by-case basis, to duly reasoned requests from competent authorities to provide PNR data and process PNR data in specific cases for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of a terrorist offence or serious crime, and to provide the competent authorities with the results of such processing; and
Amendment 273 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) analysing PNR data for the purpose of updating or creating new criteria for carrying out assessments in order to identify any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime pursuant to point (a).
Amendment 275 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the Member State referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 shall be carried out in a non- discriminatory manner on the basis of assessment criteria established by its Passenger Information Unit. Member States shall ensure that the assessment criteria are set by the Passenger Information Units, in cooperation with the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. The assessment criteria shall in no circumstances be based on a person's race or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical belief, political opinion, trade union membership, health or sexual life.
Amendment 287 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall adopt a list of the competent authorities entitled to request or receive PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data from the Passenger Information Units in order to examine that information further or take appropriate action for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime.
Amendment 291 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities shall consist of authorities competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.
Amendment 295 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The PNR data of passengers and the result of the processing of PNR data received by the Passenger Information Unit may be further processed by the competent authorities of the Member States only for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 325 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. On a case-by-case basis, upon request from a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with national law, air carriers shall transfer PNR data where access earlier than that mentioned in point (a) of paragraph 2 is necessary to assist in responding to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 330 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, with regard to persons identified by a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with Article 4(2)(a) and (b), the result of the processing of PNR data is transmitted by that Passenger Information Unit to the Passenger Information Units of other Member States where the former Passenger Information Unit considers such transfer to be necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The Passenger Information Units of the receiving Member States shall transmit such PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data to their relevant competent authorities.
Amendment 336 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(1), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The request for such data may be based on any one or a combination of data elements, as deemed necessary by the requesting Passenger Information Unit for a specific case of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. Passenger Information Units shall provide the requested data as soon as practicable and shall provide also the result of the processing of PNR data, if it has already been prepared pursuant to Article 4(2)(a) and (b).
Amendment 342 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(2), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The Passenger Information Unit may request access to specific PNR data kept by the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State in their full form without the masking out only in exceptional circumstances in response to a specific threat or a specific investigation or prosecution related to terrorist offences or serious crime.
Amendment 350 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Only in those cases where it is necessary for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to public security may the competent authorities of a Member State request directly the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2). Such requests shall relate to a specific investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime and shall be reasoned. Passenger Information Units shall respond to such requests as a matter of priority. In all other cases the competent authorities shall channel their requests through the Passenger Information Unit of their own Member State.
Amendment 355 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. Exceptionally, where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, the Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State to provide it with PNR data of flights landing in or departing from the latter's territory at any time.
Amendment 386 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Upon expiry of the period of 30 days after the transfer of the PNR data to the Passenger Information Unit referred to in paragraph 1, the data shall be retained at the Passenger Information Unit for a further period of fivthree years. During this period, all data elements which could serve to identify the passenger to whom PNR data relate shall be masked out. Such anonymised PNR data shall be accessible only to a limited number of personnel of the Passenger Information Unit specifically authorised to carry out analysis of PNR data and develop assessment criteria according to Article 4(2)(d). Access to the full PNR data shall be permitted only by the Head of the Passenger Information Unit for the purposes of Article 4(2)(c) and where it could be reasonably believed that it is necessary to carry out an investigation and in response to a specific and actual threat or risk or a specific investigation or prosecution.
Amendment 392 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – indent 3
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – indent 3
Amendment 397 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. The result of matching referred to in Article 4(2)(a) and (b) shall be kept by the Passenger Information Unit only as long as necessary to inform the competent authorities of a positive match. Where the result of an automated matching operation has, further to individual review by non- automated means, proven to be negative, it shall, however, be stored so as to avoid future ‘false’ positive matches for a maximum period of threone years unless the underlying data have not yet been deleted in accordance with paragraph 3 at the expiry of the fivthree years, in which case the log shall be kept until the underlying data are deleted.
Amendment 403 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 a (new)
Article 10 a (new)
Article 10a Penalties against Passenger Information Units Member States shall ensure, in conformity with their national law, that dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions are provided for against Passengers Information Units which do not collect, use or transmit data in accordance with the provision of this Directive.
Amendment 419 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Article 11 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that air carriers, their agents or other ticket sellers for the carriage of passengers on air service inform passengers of international flights at the time of booking a flight and at the time of purchase of a ticket in a clear and precise manner about the provision of PNR data to the Passenger Information Unit, the purposes of their processing, the period of data retention, their possible use to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute terrorist offences and serious crimetheir processing against pre- determined criteria defined by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5, the possibility of exchanging and sharing such data and their data protection rights, in particular the right to complain to a national data protection supervisory authority of their choice. The same information shall be made available by the Member States to the public.
Amendment 445 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) review the feasibility and necessity of including internal flights extending the scope of this Directive, in the light of the experience and results gained by those Member States thate collection of PNR data with regard to internal flightsand in the light of an evaluation of other EU existing tools and instruments to combat terrorism and organised crime. The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council within two years after the date mentioned in Article 15(1);
Amendment 452 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall prepare a set of statistical information on PNR data provided to the Passenger Information Units. Such statistics shall as a minimum cover the number of identifications of any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crime according to Article 4(2) and the number of subsequent law enforcement actions, including the resulting number of convictions, that were taken involving the use of PNR data per air carrier and destination.
Amendment 454 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall prepare a set of statistical information on PNR data provided to the Passenger Information Units. Such statistics shall as a minimum cover the number of identifications of any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crime according to Article 4(2) and, the number of subsequent law enforcement actions that were taken involving the use of PNR data per air carrier and destination and the number of false positive occurred while processing the PNR data concerned.
Amendment 470 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 12
Annex 1 – point 12
Amendment 25 #
2010/2269(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission's recent efforts to find procedures for legal migration for non-asylum seekers and urges it to develop further instruments in this direction, taking into account that legal possibilities will also limit organised crime that makes a profit from the necessity for people to move; takes the view, however, that efforts to improve procedures for legal immigration should be made in such a way as to guarantee full equality of social and labour rights between migrant workers and workers from the country of destination;
Amendment 217 #
2010/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Considers that since its launch in 2004 the European Neighbourhood Policy, as a single policy framework as well as a performance-driven differentiation and tailor-made assistance, has brought tangible benefits both for ENP partners and the EU; underlines that the Strategic Review of the ENP should lead to enhanced, continuous and substantial political dialogue with partner countries to support prosperity, stability and security in the Mediterranean;
Amendment 225 #
2010/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Calls for an accelerated political transition in Egypt involving all democratic political and social forces and the civil society with the aim of paving the way for the revision of the constitution and the electoral law, free and fair elections, and stabilising genuine democracy in the country;
Amendment 226 #
2010/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34b. Strongly supports the legitimate democratic aspirations expressed by people in several countries in the EU's southern neighbourhood; calls on the EU to be attentive to potential further popular demonstrations in the Mediterranean countries and to offer unequivocal and prompt support to new democratic claims; underlines that the Strategic Review of the ENP must fully take into consideration and reflect the new developments in the region and set up a political dialogue with EU's southern neighbours; emphasises again that the strengthening of democracy, the rule of law, good governance, the fight against corruptions and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are essential elements of this dialogue;
Amendment 163 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6 – point b
Article 6 – point b
(b) the use of any technological instrumentsdevice, if any, that haves been provided to the protected person or to the person causing danger to carry out the immediate enforcement of the protection measure, where appropriate;
Amendment 166 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6 – point d
Article 6 – point d
(d) the identification of(for example through a number and date) of the legal act containing the protection measure on the basis of which the European protection order is adopted;
Amendment 215 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The European protection order shall be recognised without delayexecuted within 20 days. The protected person shall be informed of the length of the period for execution.
Amendment 40 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(-1) Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the right to a fair trial, including the right to assistance and legal representation. Article 48 thereof guarantees respect for the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence.
Amendment 43 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) On 30 November 2009, the Council adopted the Roadmap on Procedural Rights which requested the Commission to put forward proposals on a "step by step" basis, on the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information about rights, the right to legal advice, before trial and at trial, the right for a detained person to communicate with family members, employers and consular authorities, and protection for vulnerable suspects.
Amendment 45 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) This Directive, the first measure on the Roadmap, should lay down common standards to be applied in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings in order to enhance the necessary confidence among Member States.
Amendment 49 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The rights provided for in this Directive should also apply to proceedings for, as necessary accompanying measures, to the execution of a European Arrest Warrant within the limits provided for by this Directive. Executing Members States should provide, and bear the costs of, interpretation and translation for the benefit of the requested person who does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings.
Amendment 50 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) The suspected or accused person should be able, inter alia, to explain his version of the events to his legal counsel, point out any statements with which he disagrees and make his legal counsel aware of any facts that should be put forward in his defence.
Amendment 51 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The finding that there is no need for interpretation or translation should be subject to the possibility of review, in accordance with national law. Such review may be carried out, for example, throughappeal. Member States should ensure that the suspect or accused person has the right to challenge a spdecific complaint procedure, or in the context of an ordinary appeal procedure against decisions on the meritssion finding that there is no need for interpretation including cases where interpretation or translation is so deficient that it amounts to an absence of interpretation.
Amendment 55 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) To ensure the effectiveness and quality of interpretation and translation, Member States should make sure that judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police and relevant court personnel are offered the necessary training to enable them to assess the suspect's linguistic needs and see to it that the necessary resources are brought to bear to ensure that the suspected or accused person is able to understand the proceedings, and to evaluate the quality of interpretation and translation.
Amendment 57 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) SThe safeguarding of the fairness of the proceedings requires that essential documents, or at least the important passages of such documents, be translated for the benefit of the suspected or accused person. It is up to the authorities of the Member States to dedocuments that are essential in order to ensure that the suspect is able to understand the case against him and exercidse which documens rights should be translated, in accordance with national law. Some documents should always be considered essential documents that should be translated, such as the decision. The following should be considered essential: the charge or indictment, the detention order depriving athe person of his liberty, the charge or indictment and any judgessential documentary evidence and judgments. In the event of deprivation of liberty, standards applying to conditions of detention, where such documents exist, should also be considered essential documents.
Amendment 58 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) A waiver of the right to written translation of documents should be unequivocal, and set out in writh minimum safeguardsing once legal advice has been taken, and should not run counter to any important public interest.
Amendment 59 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) Member States should strive for a high level of qualification for interpreters and translators employed in criminal proceedings, including for those assisting suspected or accused persons with a physical or mental impairment, in order to ensure an adequate standard of interpretation and translation and guarantee the fairness of proceedings. In addition to general language skills, these translators and interpreters should have specialist knowledge of legal terminology. The qualification of interpreters and translators employed in criminal proceedings should be verified by a formal degree or any similar proof of proficiency in the language concerned and attested through accreditation or certification.
Amendment 60 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 16 b (new)
Recital 16 b (new)
(16b) Member States should ensure that there is a national register, or registers, of qualified interpreters and translators to be employed in criminal proceedings. The register or registers should be kept up to date so as to reflect, inter alia, the status of the interpreter's or translator’s qualifications, without prejudice to the application of rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. Member States are encouraged to make their national registers accessible to competent authorities of other Member States. In this context, particular attention should be paid to the aim of facilitating the interconnection of databases for legal translators and interpreters, as envisaged in the European e-Justice action plan of 27 November 2008.
Amendment 67 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
Amendment 71 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a suspected or accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned is provided without delay with interpretation in his/her mother tongue ornecessary in order to ensure he ins another language that he/she understands, in order to safeguard his/her rights to fair proceedings. Interpretation, including of communication between the suspected or accused person and his/her legal counsel, shall be provided during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, during all cble to understand the case against him and exercise his rights and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Interpretation, including of communication between the suspect and his lawyer and covering legal advice received, shall be provided throughourt hearings and during any necessary interim hearings, and maythose proceedings. It shall also be provided in other situations. This provision does not affect rules of national law concerning the presence of a legal counsel during any stage of the criminal proceedings case of detention for official contacts between the detaining authorities and the suspect.
Amendment 74 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a suspected or accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned is provided with interpretation into his native language or into another language that he understands, in order to safeguard his right to fair proceedings. Interpretation, including of communications between the suspected or accused person and his legal counsel,out delay with high-quality interpretation that will ensure that the suspect is able to understand the case against him and exercise his rights and will safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Interpretation shall be provided during criminalthroughout the proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, during all court hearings and during any necessary interim hearings, and may be provided inecessary meetings between other situations. This provision does not affect rules of national law concerning the presence of a legal counsel during any stage of the criminal proceeduspect and his lawyer, during all court hearings and during all necessary interim hearings.
Amendment 75 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a person with a hearing impediment receives interpretation assistance, if appropriate for that personThe right to interpretation shall include linguistic assistance for persons with hearing or speech impediments.
Amendment 77 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that at someany stage in the proceedings, in accordance with national law, there is the possibility of a review of a finding that there is no need for interpretation. Such review does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism in which the sole ground for review is the challenging of such finding. at which interpretation is required there is, in accordance with national law, a right to appeal against any decision to refuse interpretation. Procedures for complaints about the quality of interpretation which provide an opportunity to secure a replacement interpreter shall also be established.
Amendment 79 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any suspected or accused person who does not understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned is provided with a translation, into his native language or into another language that he understands, of all documents which are essential in order to safeguard his right to fair proceedings, or at least the important passages of such documents, provided that the person concerned has the right of accpromptly with written translations of all essential documents that are of sufficient quality to ensure that the suspect is able to understand the accusations and to safeguard the fairness tof the documents concerned under national lawcriminal proceedings.
Amendment 82 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authorities shall decide which are the essential documents to be translated under paragraph 1. The essential docuessential documents to be translated shall include the charge or indictments, to be translated, in whole or the important passages thereof, shall include at least detention orders or equivalent decisions depriving the pershe detention order depriving the person of his liberty, essential documentary evidence and judgments. In the event of deprivation of his liberty, the charge or indictment and any judgment, where such documents existstandards applying to conditions of detention, where such documents exist, shall also be considered essential documents.
Amendment 83 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that at someany stage in the proceedings, in accordance with national law, there is the possibility of a review if at which translation is required there is, in accordance with national law, a right to appeal against any decision to refuse translation of a documents referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 3 is not provided. Such review does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism in which the sole ground for review is the challenging of such finding4 and to challenge the quality of a translation without delay.
Amendment 86 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Article 3 – paragraph 6
6. Provided that this does not affect the fairness of theBy way of derogation in exceptional circumstances and subject to the appeal proceedingsure in Article 3(4), an oral translation or an oral summary of the documentswritten material referred to in this Article may, where appropriate, be provided instead of a written translation. In such cases the Member States shall ensure that the oral translation is provided in the presence of the lawyer and does not affect the fairness of the proceedings and that a full and permanent record is kept of such oral translation or summary.
Amendment 87 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 7
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. A person who has a right undon whom this Article confers this Article toe right to receive translations of documents may, at any time, waive waive that right, in writing, after receiving legal assistance on this righpoint.
Amendment 88 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Audio and video recording In exceptional cases in which there is no written translation in accordance with Article 3(6), Member States shall ensure that an audio and video recording is made. In the event of a dispute, that recording shall be provided to any party requesting it.
Amendment 89 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6
Article 6
Nothing in this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and procedural safeguards that may be ensured under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, under other relevant provisions of international law or under the laws of any Member States which provide a higher level of protection.
Amendment 91 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 92 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
Amendment 29 #
2010/0067(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the law of the State of the spouses' last habitual residence if one of them still lives there at the time of conclusion of the agreement, provided that the application of that law does not penalise the weaker spouse;
Amendment 38 #
2010/0067(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point c
Article 4 – point c
(c) of which both spouses are nationals at the time the court is seised, provided that the application of that law does not penalise the weaker spouse; or, failing that,
Amendment 82 #
2010/0065(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Member states shall ensure that victims of trafficking can be granted and maintain the same level of protection while moving inside the European Union, through appropriate and effective measures of judicial cooperation. Victims of trafficking shall be informed accordingly of the protection measures available at EU level.
Amendment 91 #
2010/0065(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) To avoid victims needing to start multiple proceedings, Member States should ensure that victims have the right to extend in a simple and efficient way the level of protection granted them in one Member State so that this is maintained when they move around the European Union. Victims of trafficking in human beings shall therefore be informed that EU judicial cooperation procedures exist for this purpose.
Amendment 10 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, in a multipolar and increasingly interdependent world, only large regional blocs will be in a position to play a leading role and to cope with social, cultural, economic, environmental and political changes,
Amendment 19 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the European Union must adopt a strategic view of its relations with its southern neighbours with the objective of the social development of the region and move beyond cooperation driven solemainly by considerations pertaining to security and migration,
Amendment 51 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the UfM’s two major innovations, namely its institutional set-up (co-presidency, joint permanent committee and secretariat) and operational focus (integration projects), must function effectively and transparently, improving the standard of living of citizens, who are the main beneficiaries of this project,
Amendment 52 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. having regard to the adoption of the statute of the secretariat and the appointment of Secretary General Ahmad Masa'deh on 3 March 2010,
Amendment 88 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the governments of the UfM member countries to establish an ongoing and open political dialogue characterised by mutual respect and understanding, and reaffirms its desire to see the promotion of democracy and respect for human rights and individual and collective freedoms made the central focus of that dialogue; asks for more active involvement of all the members of the UfM in restarting a peace process in the Middle East that will provide a fair solution to the rights of the Palestinian people to a viable State, and the rights of the Israeli people to live in security. Europe needs to be extremely determined in this respect;
Amendment 98 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinion that political tensions and regional conflicts in the Mediterranean basin must not hinder tangible progress towards multilateral cooperation in specific sectors, and that it is through the implementation of major integration projects that the UfM will help to develop a climate of trust conducive to pursuing common security goals in a spirit of solidarity and peace, with a view to consolidating a single shore of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect;
Amendment 118 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 - point 5
Paragraph 4 - point 5
- allowing ‘variable-geometry’ cooperation arrangements open to countries and multilateral institutions wishing to work together on projects of common interest;
Amendment 119 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 - point 6
Paragraph 4 - point 6
- ensuring smooth cooperation between the secretariat and the European Commission, and clearly defining their respective remits; calls on the Commission to play an active role in the UfM and asks for greater clarity regarding its participation in this new institutional structure;
Amendment 184 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises the strategic importance of issues such as agriculture, food security, water and rural development in Mediterranean countries, and calls for cooperation in the farming sector to be made a political priority; encourages the UfM member countries to work on harmonising their positions in the context of WTO negotiations and to move towards greater convergence among Euro- Mediterranean agricultural policies; hopes that the ministerial meetings on water (Barcelona, April), the environment (Dubrovnik, April) and agriculture (Cairo, June) can stimulate cooperation in these areas;
Amendment 199 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is keen to see new projects in the cultural field put on the UfM’s agenda in the very near future; suggests that priority be given to setting up a Euro- Mediterranean junior Erasmus programme called ‘Averroës’, as a way of stepping up exchanges between secondary school pupils in UfM member countries; encourages the creation of a Euro- Mediterranean higher education area and notes that this will not be possible without promoting mobility for students and teachers from both shores;
Amendment 204 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Urges the members of the UfM to promote positive measures in the field of equal opportunities and combating discrimination against women in all areas, with the aim of preventing violence against women and trafficking in human beings, and ensuring respect for and the promotion of the role of women in society;
Amendment 210 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. States that the EMPA should be the parliamentary institution of the UfM; proposes that the name of the EMPA should be changed to Parliamentary Assembly – Union for the Mediterranean (PA-UfM) to make visible its inclusion in the UfM’s structure and projects;
Amendment 219 #
2009/2215(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for civil society, the social partners and the numerous professional and socio-professional networks developed as part of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership to be consulted regularly and involved in the UfM’s activities and projects; encourages the establishment of a Mediterranean business leaders’ forum and a Euro-Mediterranean economic and social council; welcomes the Forum for intercultural dialogue organised by the Anna Lindh Foundation in Barcelona in March 2010 in which more than 1 000 civil society organisations took part from 43 countries;
Amendment 46 #
2009/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Takes the view that the Treaty of Lisbon provides the instruments needed for the EU to play an important role in shaping the new international order by strengthening relations with its neighbours and strategic partners, consolidating its leadership in multilateral forums, assuming its responsibilities in conflict areas and making a firm commitment to promoting peace, upholding human rights and eradicating poverty;
Amendment 56 #
2009/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the need to establish greater clarity on the criteria for the appointment and evaluation of EU Special Representatives (EUSRs), bearing in mind also the need for sufficient representation of both genders; considers that relevant EUSRs should gradually take over and carry out the functions of country- based EU Heads of Delegation while EUSRs with regional responsibilities could provide political guidance to EU Heads of Delegation in the countries concerned in order to ensure coherent and consistent European external action; calls on the Vice-President/High Representative to take steps with a view to entrusting EUSRs with the task of providing political guidance also with regard to CSDP missions within their remit;
Amendment 68 #
2009/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Expresses its support for the Union continuing to contribute actively and effectively to the resolution of global issues, not least through a strengthening of the United Nations system and according special importance to consolidating the Human Rights Council and abolishing the death penalty;
Amendment 86 #
2009/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on the Council to make a special effort to support the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy, and reinforce the EU’s role as an international reference point in the field of crisis management, by boosting the EU’s civil and military capacities, with a special focus on enhancing the work of the European Defence Agency;
Amendment 90 #
2009/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the importance of gender equality, human rights and good governance objectives being fully integrated in the planning and conduct of all CSDP missions and operations, including fact-finding missions, as gender awareness and sensitivity contribute to operational effectiveness and situational awareness; in this context, welcomes the appointment of a gender adviser to nearly all CSDP missions; regrets that there are no women among the 11 EUSRs; calls on the Council and the Commission to systematically include gender equality and women'’s empowerment in the EU'’s political dialogue and policy discussions with partner countries;
Amendment 119 #
2009/2057(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Expresses its support for a new phase of deeper cooperation between the EU and Canada;
Amendment 24 #
2009/0164(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Internal protection should be effectively available to the applicant in a part of the country of origin where he or she can safely and legally travel, gain admittance and settle and where he or she can be reasonably expected to stay. In particular, when assessing what is reasonable, Member States should take due account of the following factors: the applicant’s personal circumstances, the existence of past persecution, safety and security, respect for human rights, and the possibility of economic survival in that part of the country.
Amendment 26 #
2009/0164(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27 a (new)
Recital 27 a (new)
(27a) In the same way, it is necessary for Member States to take into due account, when assessing applications for international protection, rival legal traditions and customs that involve acts constituting intent to injure or an affront to a person’s dignity, such as genital mutilation, stoning, forced marriages or honour crimes.
Amendment 59 #
2009/0164(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point f
f) acts of a gender-specific or child-specific nature, including those deriving from legal traditions or customs constituting intent to injure or an affront to a person’s dignity.
Amendment 64 #
2009/0164(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2
Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particular social group might include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be understood to include acts considered to be criminal in accordance with national law of the Member States. Gender related aspects should be given due consideration for the purposes of determining membership of a particular social group or identifying a characteristic of such a group. In determining said membership, attention shall likewise be paid to concomitant legal traditions or customs that constitute intent to injure or an affront to a person’s dignity.
Amendment 69 #
2009/0164(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. When implementing this Chapter, Member States shall take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of trafficking, victims of legal traditions or customs constituting intent to injure or an affront to a person’s dignity, persons with mental health problems and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.
Amendment 44 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) For the purposes of protection of personal data, and to exclude systematic comparisons which should be forbidden, the processing of EURODAC data should only take place on a case-by-case basis and when it is necessary for the purposes of preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. In addition access should only be allowed when comparisons with the national databases of the Member State, the Visa Information System and with the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under the Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime have returned negative results. This condition requires prior implementation of the Council Decision as it shall not be permitted to conduct a EURODAC check for law enforcement purposes where these above steps have not been first undertaken. A specific case exists in particular when the request for comparison is connected to a specific and concrete situation or to a specific and concrete danger associated with a terrorist or other serious criminal offence, or to specific persons in respect of whom there are serious grounds for believing that the persons will commit or have committed terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. A specific case also exists when the request for comparison is connected to a person who is a victim of a terrorist or other serious criminal offence. The designated authorities and Europol should thus only request a comparison with EURODAC when they have reasonable grounds to believe that such a comparison will provide information that will substantially assist them in preventing, detecting or investigating a terrorist or other serious criminal offence.
Amendment 50 #
2008/0242(COD)
(33) Transfers of data obtained pursuant to this Decision to third countries or international organisations or private entities should be prohibited, in order to ensure the right to asylum and to safeguard applicants for international protection from having their data disclosed to any third country. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] applies, in order to ensure that Member States have the possibility of cooperating with such third countries for the purposes of this Regulation. This right should not apply to transfers of data to third countries in the context of law enforcement.
Amendment 61 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Amendment 69 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) 'fingerprint data' means the data relating to fingerprints of all or at least the index fingers, and if those are missing, the prints of all other fingers of a person, or a latent.
Amendment 75 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The Agency, shall be responsible for the operational management of EURODAC. The Agency shall ensure, in cooperation with the Member States, that at all times the best available technologyiques, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, is used for the Central System.
Amendment 82 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall designate a single national body to act as its verifying authority. The verifying authority shall be an judicial authority of the Member State which is responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences and shall be independent from the designated authorities referred to in Article 5.
Amendment 85 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The verifying authority shall perform its duties and tasks independently and shall neither seek nor receive instructions as regards the exercise of the verification.
Amendment 106 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Once the results of the comparison have been transmitted to the Member State of origin, the Central System shall immediately: (a) erase the fingerprint data and other data transmitted to it pursuant to paragraph 1; and (b) destroy the media used by the Member State of origin for transmitting the data to the Central System, unless the Member State of origin has requested their return.
Amendment 112 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Article 18
Amendment 115 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. The designated authorities referred to in Article 5(1) and Europol may submit a reasoned electronic request as provided for in Article 20(1) to the verifying authority for the transmission for comparison of fingerprint data to the EURODAC Central System via the National Access Point. Upon receipt of such a request, the verifying authority shall verify whether the conditions for requesting a comparison referred to in Article 20 or Article 21, as appropriate, are fulfilled.
Amendment 119 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Designated authorities may request the comparison of fingerprint data with those stored in the EURODAC central database within the scope of their powers only if comparisons of national fingerprint databases, the Visa Information System and of the Automated Fingerprint Databases of at least a third of other Member States under Decision 2008/615/JHA return negative results and where all the following cumulative conditions are met:
Amendment 123 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) there is an overriding public security concern which makes proportionate the querying of a database registering persons with a clean criminal record, and there are reasonable grounds to consider that such comparison with EURODAC data will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of any of the criminal offences in question because there are serious grounds to believe that persons in respect of whom comparison with EURODAC is requested will commit or have committed terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences or are victims of a terrorist or serious criminal offence.
Amendment 125 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) there is a substantiated suspicion that the suspect, perpetrator or victim of a terrorist or other serious criminal offence has applied for international protection.
Amendment 136 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A person covered by this Regulation shall be informed by the Member State of origin in writing, and where appropriate, orally, in a language which he or she understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand of the following:
Amendment 138 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) regarding the purpose for which his or her data will be processed within EURODAC including a description of the aims of the Dublin Regulation, in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation and a full and clear explanation of the access that may be granted to law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes.
Amendment 150 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. Personal data obtained pursuant to this Regulation from EURODAC for the purposes as laid down in Article 1(2) shall only be processed for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offenceshe specific criminal investigation for which the data has been requested by that Member State, or Europol.
Amendment 153 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4
Article 33 – paragraph 4
4. Personal data, as well as the record of the search, obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation from EURODAC shall be erased in all national and Europol files after a period of one month, if the data are not required for athe purposes of the specific ongoing criminal investigation for which the data has been requested by that Member State, or Europol.
Amendment 161 #
2008/0242(COD)
Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation, including personal data obtained by a Member State and processed further in national databases for law enforcement purposes, from the EURODAC central database shall not be transferred or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the European Union. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which the Dublin Regulation applies provided that the Member State transferring such data has obtained the commitment of the third country that it will not transfer or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the European Union this personal data.
Amendment 172 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 5
Article 40 – paragraph 5
5. Three years after the start of application of this Regulation as provided for in Article 46(2) and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall produce an overall evaluation of EURODAC, examining the results achieved against objectives and the impact on fundamental rights and assessing the continuing validity of the underlying rationale, and any implications for future operations, including whether the operation of the search functionality for law enforcement purposes will have led to the stigmatisation of persons seeking international protection, as well as make any necessary recommendations. The Commission shall transmit the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council.